Spanish Fishing Fleet: EU Policy

Baroness Wilcox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether, as reported in the Sunday Telegraph of 18th November, the European Union will pay £122 million to compensate Spanish fishermen who can no longer fish off the coast of Morocco.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the payment of £122 million or 197 million euros is for restructuring the Community fleet that had previously fished within the framework of the old EU/Morocco agreement. It fulfils a decision by the Nice European Council meeting of December 2000 that a package of restructuring aid should be put in place for Spanish and Portuguese vessel owners and fishermen if it proved impossible to renew the EU/Morocco fisheries agreement.

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. Will he now confirm that next year the huge Spanish fleet, which is bigger than the rest of the Community fleet put together, will move into our northern waters for the first time? Will the Minister comfort British fishermen, their dependent families, myself and this House by saying what precautions the Government will put in place to ensure that the behaviour that occurred in Moroccan waters does not take place in our northern waters?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not confirm in the terms expressed by the noble Baroness that the Spanish fleet will be redirected to our waters as a result of the agreement. The money to which I referred is intended primarily for the decommissioning of Spanish and Portuguese vessels. Access to northern waters, which will have to be discussed over the coming months, is confined to quotas contained or limited by the quotas which prevail in those waters. Therefore, Spanish access will be very limited and the existing precautions will continue. As the noble Baroness knows, the whole fisheries policy will be under review next year.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, do the Government differentiate between the waters off Morocco and those off Western Sahara?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the agreement with Morocco covered the area of sea which related to the internationally recognised territorial waters of Morocco. Other agreements cover an area further south, but the one relating to Morocco meant that in practice Spanish and Portuguese vessels were fishing not only in Moroccan but also in Western Saharan waters. The agreement with Morocco has not been renewed. The cost of renewing it would have been substantially greater than the cost of the restructuring for decommissioning in Spain and Portugal.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, I am somewhat puzzled by the question of selling fishing licences to Spanish companies. I do not understand it. Does my noble friend know of any pressure that has been brought to bear on this matter other than that of the money gained from selling the licences? Is there any other aspect to this issue of which he can make the House aware? As I said, I am concerned by the whole concept of selling licences. Are they sold only for money or for another reason?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, basically there is no reason other than that the previous government left this country wide open to the ability to sell licences without conditions. During that period, some fishermen within the United Kingdom were prevailed upon to part with their licences. It was only in 1999 that we inserted a provision which required those acquiring UK licences to have an economic link with the United Kingdom. That move has limited the number of licences now being acquired by foreign owners. In addition, foreign owners are required to ensure that at least 50 per cent of the catch or 50 per cent of the crew are connected with the United Kingdom.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, does the Minister agree that every November and December Ministers and scientists hold protracted discussions on the total allowable catch? The result of this year's talks seems to be the most serious ever in relation to the cuts required around United Kingdom waters. Does the Minister believe that the decommissioning money available for the United Kingdom fleet is adequate, bearing in mind the long-term impact on small fishing ports which have no alternative employment?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct to say that at roughly this time of year we become engaged in long, protracted and detailed negotiations. Indeed, my colleague, Elliot Morley, is attending a meeting of the Fisheries Council today to discuss these very issues. The Commission proposes a substantial cut in the total annual catch and in the quotas. While we agree with the overall approach of the Commission, we believe that in certain respects its proposals are not appropriate and that the cuts are too great. However, we do not accept the view of some in the industry that such an approach should not have been adopted. Certainly, the needs of conservation and of restoring cod stocks requires a fairly substantial cut. We believe that the decommissioning money will help a number of our fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in his answer to the supplementary question asked by my noble friend Lady Wilcox, the Minister said that the £122 million was intended primarily for decommissioning the Spanish fleet. That presupposes that there are other reasons. What are they?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the bulk of the money is for decommissioning. The rest relates to various social provisions in the Spanish and Portuguese locations of fishing.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the original Question. I understand that some 300 fishing vessels from the Spanish fleet will be, or are supposed to be, decommissioned now that they can no longer fish in Moroccan waters. How quickly will that happen, and will they all be decommissioned? Secondly, what cross-border agreements have been reached between British and Spanish inspectors in relation to inspection? I know that that subject has been talked about for many years. Has it been moved any further forward?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, with regard to the second point, although substantial discussions have taken place and there is improved understanding between the British and Spanish authorities, so far as I am aware there is no cross-presence of personnel in the sense to which I believe the noble Baroness referred.
	With regard to the noble Baroness's first point, a time-scale will be applied to the decommissioning over the next year or so. The final details are not complete because the agreement between the EU and Morocco was given until the end of the year to run. It is only now that it is recognised that the agreement will finish, and therefore the final conditions have yet to be stipulated. However, a limit will be placed on the time taken by Spain and Portugal to decommission their boats.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, bearing in mind that before we joined the common fisheries policy the United Kingdom owned some 80 per cent of the fish that swim in European waters, can the Minister tell the House whether repatriation of the common fisheries policy is on the Government's agenda post-Laeken as we move towards 2004? If not, why not?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that for once the noble Lord and I agree: the common fisheries policy is not the greatest success of our European policy. There have been problems in that respect and we look to a major change in the common fisheries policy. However, our assessment of the position indicates that, although the present common fisheries policy has not served our interests well, due to conservation needs, the decline in stock and the need for co-operation between the EU countries, we still need a common policy. Therefore, repatriation in the total sense to which the noble Lord refers is not appropriate.

Tax Revenues

Lord Northbrook: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	By how much tax revenues have declined as a result of the economic slowdown; and how this shortfall will be met.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, tables B8 and 2.4 of the Pre-Budget Report set out the changes to the projections for receipts since Budget 2001, including those that result from changes in GDP. The Government remain on track to meet both fiscal rules over the economic cycle, including in the cautious case.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the Government would raise more revenue overall by lowering the rate of corporation tax—thus encouraging inward investment—than by increasing the rate of national insurance contributions that make this country less competitive, and if not, why not?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a peculiarly complex hypothetical question. We do not believe that it is necessary for taxes to rise. We are meeting the firm fiscal rules—the golden rule and the sustainable development rule.

Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Minister may remember that a few weeks ago the Treasury was planning to save taxpayers' money by selling £100,000 worth of its silver and to give the proceeds to the NHS. How does the Minister consider that people will now react when they discover that since then the Treasury has spent 500 times that amount (£50 million) on one item—lawyers' and accountants' fees for the liquidation of Railtrack?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Treasury was not planning to save £100,000 by selling what is called the "Treasury silver" for the benefit of the NHS. The Treasury has a rule, as do all departments, that non-performing assets should be disposed of unless there are good reasons to the contrary. None of the proceeds from those asset sales, and certainly not from Treasury asset sales, are hypothecated to any particular purpose. There is a history of payments of lawyers' and accountants' fees. Some of the most extreme examples took place during the privatisation programme of the previous government. Some noble Lords feel that the size of them is regrettable.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister's Answer to my noble friend Lord Northbrook was factually correct. Unfortunately, it was totally meaningless to most noble Lords and certainly to myself. Can he tell the House what is in table 2.4, for example?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. It is a complex table with five columns and seven rows. It is not possible to answer that kind of question in reply to a Starred Question.

Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the greater challenge facing the Government this year is not so much under-receipt in terms of tax revenue, but underspend in terms of government expenditure programmes, bearing in mind the £0.7 billion underspend next year? Can he tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the underspend this year will be less?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, I agree in large part with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. Underspend is a serious problem, particularly when it follows many years of underfunding. For a long time the need has been well recognised, but this particular tanker takes time to turn. All the spending departments in the Government have been given firm targets and encouragement to overcome that problem as soon as possible.

Lord Blackwell: My Lords, as a result of the economic slow-down or otherwise, recently the Government have suggested that tax levels will have to rise. Can the Minister confirm that national insurance contributions are regarded by the Government as part of their overall pledge on tax levels? I refer particularly to their pledge not to increase taxation for higher level taxpayers.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have not said, explicitly or implicitly, that taxes will rise. Quite clearly we have said that in the period of the current spending review there is no need for taxes to rise. We are meeting both of the fiscal rules to which I referred earlier and the money that is available from existing taxes—in the next financial year a surplus of £10 billion is forecast—is sufficient to provide resources for the needed investment in health, education and transport. Therefore, the second part of the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, does not apply.

Lord Northbrook: My Lords, does the Minister agree that by lowering the rate of corporation tax, the total revenue will increase, so creating a virtuous circle?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, some economists say that. At times that may be true. I do not particularly want to commit the Government to saying that it is true now.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the question put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, is ill conceived because the rate of corporation tax in Britain is lower than in any other country in Europe?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. However, under certain circumstances it still could be true—it is true of all taxes—that if the rate is lowered, receipts are encouraged. That was why I was not quite as dismissive to the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, as the noble Baroness indicates that I perhaps should have been.

House of Lords Reform

The Earl of Liverpool: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the context of their proposals for House of Lords reform, whether they consider that list systems will deliver appropriate levels of independence among the membership of the House.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords, any system of elections has to balance the independence of the representatives with the need for accountability to the people. Both of those attributes are desirable in a democracy and must be balanced against each other. List systems can deliver both.

The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I thank the Lord Privy Seal for that reply. Does he agree that independence can come in a variety of forms and from any quarter of your Lordships' House, as was admirably demonstrated by noble Lords on the Government Benches last week? In the government White Paper on House of Lords reform, such independence is an element to which people attach the highest importance. Can the Minister tell the House what form of list system is likely to be employed? Am I right in believing that the closed party list is currently the Government's preferred option? Does the noble and learned Lord agree that any election system that is likely to lead to similar Whipping techniques as those that exist in another place should be studiously avoided?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl that independence is a prized attribute of most, if not all, Members of this House. I personally am a strong supporter of that. The Government have no closed view about closed lists. The White Paper suggests that there should be a list system and we have specifically said that we welcome observations on the type of list to be used.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, while hoping that my noble and learned friend may yet not decide to push ahead with a hybrid House, does he accept that with any system in which lists are selected by the parties, particularly one in which the order of the names on the lists are selected by the parties, one may just as well have appointments? The principle would be identical. Can he assure the House that, if the Government intend to go ahead with a list system, the legislation will include a clause preventing political parties proceeding in that way?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend speaks of a hybrid House. At the moment it is a hybrid House. It consists of Law Lords, Bishops, hereditary Peers and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Barnett. At the moment we do not have a blanket uniformity and nor shall we want that in the future. It is well known that elections in modern times are normally funded by political parties and political parties have a part to play. However, I agree with my noble friend's underlying theme; I believe it was the underlying theme of the noble Earl, Lord Liverpool. We want a House that is able to scrutinise the Government, whichever government are in power, at any particular time. I repeat my earlier proposition: the way that we work is as important as the composition of the House

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that the admiration that some noble Lords hold for political parties is very limited indeed? Is there any prospect that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me—I have said this before—that political parties are the only thoroughly nasty thing of which I know of which one needs more than one?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I always defer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, because he has had a very long life, serving—I use that word neutrally—a political party. I am bound to say that, being an innocent in these matters, I have always thought that politics was a dirty business. Thank God I have nothing to do with it.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that attention has perhaps been deflected away from the working practices of this House and much attention has been given to its composition? Perhaps that will not help matters as regards the long-term prospects of the reform of this House.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is absolutely right. We need to attend not simply to the attraction of the moment, which is composition. Although that is deeply important, what will fundamentally matter much more to this House—I entirely agree with the right reverend Prelate—is how we deliver, and that means how we work; how we scrutinise; and how we bring the executive to account.

Earl Russell: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord confirm that if the Government choose to proceed under the system of election in use in the European Parliament, both the nominated and elected Peers will be chosen by the parties in proportion to votes cast? Where is the difference?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, one needs to bear in mind—I hope that this will be borne in mind at some stage—that there will be very little opportunity to alter the composition of this House numerically because the life Peers have been assured that they shall remain as long as they choose. What will happen at the moment is that 92 hereditary Peers—in whose defence there is no stronger partisan than I—will be substituted by 120 elected Peers. I should have thought that by and large that was quite a good idea.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us who have maintained our contacts in the other House, and who meet people every day, know of no support whatever for a system of election to this House which in any way replicates the system used for the European Parliament? Indeed, we confidently predict that in the other House there will be the biggest rebellion of this Parliament on this electoral system if it is adopted in the way that someone suggested, although I cannot speak for what may happen here. I ask my noble friend whether we can discard that European-type system altogether now, immediately, and begin a proper debate on a way to elect Members to this House which carries both support in the country and in both Houses of Parliament.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is fair to say that closed lists have not been met with universal acclamation. I think that I hold the world record for ping-pong, since the matter went back and forth from this to the other place five times. I understand what my noble friend says. There is a debate which is going on. In talking to Members of the House of Commons, it is interesting that many of them—probably all of them—do not want the closed list, but none of them agrees on what they want instead.

Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland

Lord Glentoran: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have to review the powers and role of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we have no plans to review the powers and role of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. I had anticipated one as brief. I hope, nevertheless, that he is aware of matters that are occurring in Northern Ireland in reference to that office. Is the noble and learned Lord aware that in the recent review from the ombudsman on the Omagh bomb, the Chief Constable was condemned without ever being heard, to such an extent that legal action is threatened? Furthermore, does he agree that a report which tells only one half of the story is totally worthless?
	Finally, can he tell the House who is responsible for ensuring that the ombudsman carries out her duty,
	"To enhance public confidence in the police",
	in a satisfactory manner and within the law?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, one needs to be quite cautious here and to disentangle what is in the report, which has not been published so far as I am aware to anyone other than the Secretary of State, the Chief Constable and the Policing Board.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. My information comes from my friend in the other House, Mr Quentin Davies, who has read it.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am not disputing that Mr Davies may or may not have read the report, I am simply repeating my factually correct observation that it has not been published.
	There is the prospect, I am told, of legal action by the Chief Constable. He wishes to have his opportunity to respond fully to the final report. We should give the Chief Constable the opportunity to take legal action if he wants. That will be a form of legal constraint, to which the noble Lord referred, on the ombudsman. He should have his opportunity to make his observations. I am taking no sides in this particular dispute because I do not regard myself as sufficiently well informed. All I can say is that, having known the Chief Constable and worked with him over several years, I have always found him to be a public servant of the highest quality.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can I ask the noble and learned Lord what the remit of the ombudsman is so far as concerns South of the Border? I think that he would agree that the Omagh operation began in Dundalk and that necessarily therefore the RUC and the Garda have both been involved and worked together. Does the ombudsman have access to Garda papers and documents, as she has in the case of the RUC? If not, is it not strange that she should make a professional judgment based on half the evidence?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I repeat my cautionary words. The noble Baroness will not have been able to read the full report. The ombudsman has to exercise her powers by United Kingdom statute. She has to have regard to the efficiency, effectiveness and independence of the police complaints system and the confidence of the public and of members of the police force in that system. I do not know whether the ombudsman had access to Garda papers. What she was rightly concerned with was a serious criminal act within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. She was entitled to carry out the inspection. My information is that the Chief Constable has publicly and honourably said that if the ombudsman had not started her investigation he would have invited her to do so.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is it not a strange Alice in Wonderland world where the security services and the Chief Constable are attacked and excoriated, while the people who actually carried out the bombing and caused such carnage get off scot-free and with apparently no criticism?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not accept that for a single second. No one has failed to criticise on any appropriate public or private occasion the wanton criminality and the cruel wickedness of those who carried out that bomb attack. We are dealing with a system that was set up prior to the attack in Omagh. It was set up with the support of the chief constable of Northern Ireland. It is a statutory regime which allows an ombudsman to carry out certain inquiries. I do not know sufficiently well whether she has reached a right or a wrong judgment. The Chief Constable is entitled to his opportunity to make a full response. But I utterly repudiate the suggestion that no one has criticised those who carried out those wicked acts.

Lord Smith of Clifton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is nevertheless need for a greater and tighter delineation between the role of the Police Ombudsman and the functions of the Policing Board? Does he further agree that when, as all too often happens, an investigation about the police takes place in Northern Ireland, relevant documents invariably go missing? That detracts from, not adds to, the reputation of the police. Does he agree that that is a criminal offence?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am sorry if documents go missing or witnesses are not available. Self-evidently, the noble Lord is right: if documents are wilfully disposed of or secreted, that may be a criminal offence—I know that it has been prosecuted as such.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on the European Council in Laeken. It is likely that the Statement will be repeated after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and before the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth in the debate on Afghanistan.

Consolidated Fund Bill

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
	On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
	Then, Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 13th December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

Afghanistan

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: rose to move, That this House takes note of the current situation in Afghanistan.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, since the unforgettable events of 11th September, this House has had several opportunities to discuss the international community's response to the threat of terrorism. Today, we look forward to hearing a fresh voice, in the form of the maiden speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank. For my part, I very much welcome his choosing this debate for his first contribution. As a former colleague, I know first hand that his wise, practical and down-to-earth approach—and, indeed, his humour—will be of enormous value to us in this House.
	The Government welcome the opportunity today to debate the situation in Afghanistan. We have achieved a great deal during the past three months since the terrible events of September 11th. But we must be clear too that we have a great deal more to do. We said that we were in this for the long haul, and we are.
	Events on the ground have moved rapidly in Afghanistan. Let us not forget that only a few short weeks ago there was much speculation that our military campaign against terrorism could and would achieve nothing. Now there is similar speculation that its success is automatically guaranteed. Neither is true. The reality of this campaign is different. It is much more complex and tough. Of course, we regret any casualties caused—especially civilian casualties, which we continue to strive to minimise and avoid. But I pay tribute to the extraordinary efforts and courage of our Armed Forces, and of the armed forces of all our coalition partners, in pursuit of our objectives.
	The pace of change in Afghanistan must not and will not obscure those objectives, which remain now as they have been throughout this campaign. They are as follows. Our first objective is to bring Osama bin Laden and the Al'Qaeda network to justice and prevent them posing a continuing terrorist threat. To that end, the second objective is to ensure that Afghanistan ceases to harbour and sustain international terrorism, including securing sufficient change in the leadership of Afghanistan to ensure that its links to international terrorism are broken. The third is to dismantle the mechanism of international terrorism and to ensure that states are deterred from supporting or harbouring it.
	We have made great strides over a short period towards securing those objectives. First, bin Laden has not yet been apprehended, but he will be. As President Bush put it, we will bring bin Laden to justice or bring justice to him. Secondly, we have severely damaged the ability of Al'Qaeda to mount international terrorism, although we must be continually on our guard against it. Thirdly, the Taliban has been routed in Afghanistan and, accordingly, its ability to use Afghanistan as a base for international terrorism is effectively over. Fourthly, we have made widespread moves against the apparatus of international terrorism.
	Behind those objectives and the purpose of what we have achieved lie the events of September 11th. Bin Laden and the Taliban want us to forget about September 11th. We shall never forget. Let us be clear. The loss of nearly 4,000 lives in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania resulted directly from the decision of the Al'Qaeda networks to launch those evil attacks. The loss of life in Afghanistan in the weeks that followed resulted directly from the decision of the Taliban regime to go on protecting the terrorists in defiance of the will of the international community and against the interests of the Afghan people.
	Al'Qaeda and the Taliban made their own choices. They could have chosen to renounce terror. Instead, they chose the path of destruction. They chose the path of evil. We in the coalition made our choices too. We could have chosen to do nothing. Instead, we chose the path of tackling terror—of looking into the face of evil and deciding that good must come from it and that good must succeed.
	I respect the view of those who disagreed with that choice, but I hope that they in turn respect the fact that the choice of military action as part of an overall diplomatic and humanitarian strategy was right, and that the campaign on all its fronts—military, diplomatic and humanitarian—has been vindicated by events.
	The video of Osama bin Laden, believed to have been recorded in November this year and released by the US authorities last week, provides conclusive evidence of the role of Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda in the 11th September terrorist attacks. It reveals yet further disturbing evidence that he was behind the atrocities of 11th September and that if he is not stopped now, he will strike again.
	Once again, bin Laden is condemned by his own words, boasting about his involvement in the evil attacks. He says,
	"we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all . . . Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all we had hoped for".
	That is the chilling evidence of his complete disregard for human life. It demonstrates why the coalition's campaign is so necessary.
	I am pleased to report that the military coalition is well on the way to achieving the campaign objectives. The Taliban protectors of the terrorist networks have been driven out of the major cities of Kabul, Mazar-i Sharif, Herat and Kandahar. The Al'Qaeda training camps have been destroyed. Al'Qaeda has been driven out of its key base in Tora Bora.
	However, there is still a lot to do. Military operations will continue until the coalition's objectives have been fully met. Osama bin Laden and his associates must be brought to justice and the Al'Qaeda network prevented from posing a continuing terrorist threat. Make no mistake, these people would, if they could, perpetrate further evil and destruction. We believe that bin Laden remains in the Tora Bora region. We are pursuing him and the remaining Al'Qaeda terrorists and will continue to do so until we catch them or know that they are dead.
	The Taliban harbourers of terrorists were a sinister, barbarous and fanatical regime. They demonstrated cruelty of medieval proportions towards the Afghan people—especially towards women, who had little or no access to healthcare or education and virtually no access to the outside world. The Taliban regime became a major obstacle to getting humanitarian relief through to the people of Afghanistan. Its collapse has given the Afghan people hope for a brighter future. Now that their grip on most of the country has gone, many more aid convoys are reaching the people who need them.
	Since 11th September, the World Food Programme has brought 70,000 tonnes of food into the country. At present, the aid agencies and the international community are getting four times as much food into Afghanistan each day as they were at the beginning of October.
	On the diplomatic front, we saw in Bonn perhaps the most astonishing success of all. Almost without exception, every forecast from every commentator was not just that Bonn would fail, but that it could not possibly succeed: that these were people who could not be in the same country as one another, let alone at the same conference. But what in fact happened was that the representatives of the non-Taliban Afghan factions, some of whom have certainly fought each other at different times over the past 20 years, sat down together in Bonn and thrashed out an agreement which puts Afghanistan back on the path to peace—although there is still a way to go.
	In recording that, we express our gratitude to the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, and to his Special Representative, Lakhdar Brahimi. Mr. Brahimi's patience, insight and skill were critical factors in bringing the negotiations to that remarkable conclusion. I also pay tribute to the Afghan participants.
	I am also glad that we in the UK were able to play an active part in the process, through the involvement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, and through the work of diplomats such as Robert Cooper, Paul Bergne, Steven Evans, Andrew Tesoriere and many others. Now the interim Afghan authority is due to convene in Kabul on 22nd December. We all wish it well and we want it to succeed.
	One indicator of the success already achieved is the position of women in Afghanistan. As little as four or five weeks ago, under the Taliban, women could not go outside their own homes without being accompanied by a man. Now, from Saturday, the new administration will include two women, with one of them the vice-president. That is an extraordinary level of social change delivered by the campaign we have mounted with the Afghan people. It is extraordinary in one sense, but it is entirely normal in another. Like everything else in the agreement, this is the beginning of a process of returning Afghanistan to normality.
	I believe that the House can be proud of this country's role in the liberation of the Afghan people, and we can be especially proud of the courage of our troops at Bagram airfield in securing the air base and making it safe for the United Nations and other diplomatic and humanitarian missions. We were the first country to establish a diplomatic presence in Kabul, and we welcome the raising of the American flag at its mission in Kabul today for the first time since 1989. As the US said today, "We're here, and we're here to stay". My Lords, so are we.
	Alongside that, however, there has always been the imperative on the international community to deliver a second liberation to free the Afghan people from the other scourges that have beset them for decades; from fear, hunger, poverty and war. There are several immediate and urgent tasks.
	First, there is the need to ensure that Al'Qaeda and the Taliban are completely eliminated. Secondly, there is the immediate humanitarian emergency. Thirdly, there is the issue of the multinational force requested by the parties at Bonn to provide security assistance in Kabul and the surrounding areas for the nascent political community, and for the institutions of that fledgling state.
	My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made clear our willingness in principle to,
	"play a leading role in any UN-mandated force to provide stability in Afghanistan",
	just as we were there to make a key contribution to the pursuit of the Al'Qaeda network and bin Laden, and continue to do so. However, there are still details to be discussed and no formal decisions have been taken yet.
	The recent military co-ordination meeting, which was held in London on Friday and discussed options for an international security assistance force (ISAF), was a vital part of that process. However, it is important that the international community keeps its planning in step with the new interim authority in Afghanistan. In this regard a small international reconnaissance and liaison team, led by Major General McColl, is in Kabul to discuss proposals for the ISAF. He will report back later this week.
	These are merely the most pressing needs of the new Afghan state, but there are many other problems that cannot be resolved quickly. Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world. The country has known little but war, bloodshed and chaos for a generation; one-quarter of all children do not make it to their fifth birthday; one-third are orphans; and half are malnourished. The international community has let Afghanistan down in the past. We are not going to turn our backs on the Afghan people again.
	The Bonn agreement set out a road map to a better future. We have to ensure that all the parties involved stay on the road and follow the map. There will be an emergency Loya Jirgah within six months, from which a broad-based traditional administration will emerge. Eighteen months after that, there will be a full Loya Jirgah to agree a new constitution, under which free and fair elections will be held for a fully representative government.
	The international community and the UN have assisted the Afghan people to begin the process of rebuilding their nation. Their future is in their hands. We have an urgent responsibility to support the interim administration, and we will continue to support it to build a brighter future for all the people of Afghanistan.
	I want to pay particular tribute to the central role that the United Nations has played since the beginning of this crisis. The UN moved rapidly into action by passing Security Council Resolution 1368. Two weeks later, it passed Resolution 1373, designed to tackle the organisations which support and finance the terrorists. Resolution 1373 was the first global resolution with an obligation on all states to tackle terrorism. All states owe it to the victims of September 11th to implement its provisions as soon as possible.
	Important as the military, diplomatic and humanitarian efforts in Afghanistan are to the fight against international terrorism, their successful completion alone will not remove terrorism as a force in international affairs. Therefore, we must all do what we can to promote peace. That includes fostering the Middle East peace process, which represents the only way in which Palestinian grievances can be addressed and Israel's security guaranteed.
	All our hopes for the Middle East are stretched to the limit. But despite that—perhaps because of that—we have to encourage both parties in that terrible conflict to go back, in appropriate circumstances, to the negotiating table.
	We also have to step up international measures to combat terrorism. We have to work for universal acceptance of the principle that violence directed against civilians for political ends is never justified. We do not condone acts of terrorism carried out under the guise of fighting for freedom. Although we are prepared to talk to states which do not endorse this principle, our scope for active co-operation with them is indeed severely limited.
	We have to go on providing development and humanitarian assistance and making the case for effective action to combat poverty, oppression, conflict, criminality and every malign force that excludes our fellow human beings from the benefits of a globalised world.
	The shock and the tragedy of the attacks of September 11th remain with us all. The lives of many families can never be the same again. Our hearts, our thoughts and our prayers go out to them now, as they have done since that dreadful day. But we are determined that the victims should not have given their lives in vain. We all carry that responsibility: to make sure that the ability of international terrorists to kill, to damage, to destroy is halted, and then ended. I believe that we are all shouldering that responsibility. That is what the coalition is all about. That is what the campaign in Afghanistan has been about. That is what the continuing campaign will be about.
	Let us all be in no doubt how hard that will be. We should not delude ourselves that the response to Al'Qaeda and the routing of its Taliban protectors in Afghanistan spells the end of the international terrorist threat or of the fight against it. We cannot put a time on when terrorism will be defeated, but defeat it we shall.
	We have shown that the determination of the international community can defeat the evil that seeks to destroy us and that destroyed the lives of so many people on 11th September. We have shown that action to enforce universal values is a powerful force for good in the world. We have shown, too, that we have not forgotten 11th September and that we will not rest until we have made sure that such an atrocity can never happen again. We shall continue to strive so that good can come out of evil, and that good will come out of evil. I beg to move.
	Moved, That this House takes note of the current situation in Afghanistan.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean).

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for setting out in such a clear way the Government's latest thinking on the unfolding crisis and saga of global terrorism. I share her anticipation of and enthusiasm for the forthcoming maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank. His vast experience and judgment will be an enormous asset to your Lordships' House.
	It is now a little more than three months since the horrors of 11th September. I understand that bodies are still being brought out of the burning wreckage and that the ruins are being gradually dismantled amidst the smouldering horror—vividly reminding New Yorkers of what happened on that day.
	Having listened to the noble Baroness, I am struck—as I am sure are many noble Lords—by the way in which that event, and the huge campaign against terrorism which has grown from it, interweaves and interconnects a vast range of issues which, in the past, we often used to discuss separately—for instance, issues of military deployment; of our own security; of development and third world and humanitarian aid; of the Middle East crisis and Gulf stability, to which the noble Baroness referred; of the future role of European defence forces and the role they will play, if any, in Afghanistan; of the role of NATO and the way it should be reshaped in the light of 11th September; of the handling of Russia and the way in which the Russians now fit into the global pattern and the pattern of reorganisation in Afghanistan, where again there are now Russian troops; and of our own civil liberties and internal security, which we debated in your Lordships' House last week. Those matters have created an entirely new landscape. It is against that new landscape of global interweave that we have to look at the next stage of events and what is about to happen.
	Perhaps I may first deal with the foreground and raise one or two queries with the Minister. We understand that the affair in Tora Bora and the White Mountains is more or less over. Secretary of State Colin Powell said that he believed the Taliban were finished in that area. Whether it is finished in the whole of Afghanistan, no one is quite sure. One hopes that it is.
	There remains the question of the monster, bin Laden. As the noble Baroness rightly said, the video confirms what no one should have really doubted—although some people did doubt it before—that this man was a planner of multi-mass murder—and enjoyed it. He took delight in the slaughter, mayhem, evil and sorrow that he was imposing on his fellow human beings. We need not have any doubts about that. I heard one distinguished and right reverend Prelate, a Member of the House, say over the weekend on "Thought for the Day" that in everything there was a clash of values. But in this case there is no clash of values. The values are on the side of those who have sought to halt evil; the sheer valueless evil was all on the other side. There is no ambiguity about this—it was pure evil, as the noble Baroness rightly emphasised. The sooner this particular embodiment of it is nailed—and I think someone will get him before long—the better.
	We are seeing a curious saga coming to a close and a much bigger saga about to begin. It was not so much a question of state-sponsored terrorism as the emergence of a terrorist-sponsored state, which has now brought ruin on itself and much misery to the Afghan people, which we must do our best to repair.
	The immediate question in regard to foreground is what kind of force are we to send? I know that the Prime Minister has trailed that he will be briefing Members of the other place about this issue very shortly, but there remain some disturbing questions for those of us who are following the situation from outside. Do the Afghans want a force? What size force do they want? General Fahim of the Northern Alliance said that he wanted 1,000 men at the most and indicated a general distaste for having any foreign troops in a stabilisation force. Mr Hamid Karzai, who has a formidable task, clearly wants a stronger force of 5,000 or 6,000. General Wesley Clarke said on the radio this morning that that might be enough for Kabul, but if we wanted serious policing of this enormous country it would take 25,000 or 30,000. Are we absolutely clear that we are organising the right force for the right job? That issue worries a number of people. I look forward to the expert views on that question which will be given later in the debate.
	There is also the question of what is to be the mandate for the stabilisation force. Is it to rebuild infrastructure? Is it to help the Americans in the cleaning up of the remainder of the Taliban in the mountains? Will it have a Chapter VII mandate? Will its members be able not only to defend themselves but to enforce some kind of peace? These are urgent questions because all of this is supposed to happen on Saturday night.
	Those of us who follow these matters—and, indeed, the Parliaments of this country, which treasure and cherish our army and its brilliant performance—want to be absolutely sure that we, and those in charge on the military side, have a clear view of what is expected. We want to be certain that this is not some kind of gesture politics before we have thought out precise tasks and roles. Yes, we understand what needs to be done, but vagueness of purpose and vagueness about the size of the force is dangerous. While clearly the Afghan people must now be supported and fed—it is good news that more food is getting through—nation-building has to be done by the Afghan people. We can perform only certain, specialised—and maybe unfamiliar—roles in supporting it.
	So that is the foreground. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for commenting on those issues. It may be that we will hear a little more when her noble friend comes to reply to the debate.
	Perhaps I may now turn to the background, which the Minister also covered and which is a far longer stretch ahead of us. I wish to make only a few points. Solving the problem in Afghanistan—if that is what we have done—does not begin to solve the world's terrorist crisis. It takes out one miserable terrorist-sponsored state, but it does not even ensure that Afghanistan will settle down rapidly. I hope that it will, but the chances of Afghanistan leaping into instant democracy after years of civil war and the traumas of recent months are very slight. It is indeed a situation where there is far to go.
	It may be that some events have occurred overnight. I hear that the sellers of burkas have put up their shutters or discarded their stock and taken on CD ROM's instead; the sound of music is to be heard and life allowed to return after the hideous dark night of the Taliban. That is fine—but the habit of democratic debate and argument, the give and take, will take very much longer to appear. That is the first consideration which we need to bear in mind.
	Secondly, Afghanistan is not the only theatre of war. The one thing we have learned is that the Al'Qaeda is a vast network of cells, not necessarily with any one particular head, and that it is embedded across the globe. As I understand it, to some extent it is embedded in Iraq; there is growing evidence that Saddam Hussein had more than a passing interest in the horrors of 11th September and may have more than a passing interest in future atrocities being planned. It appears that some of the Al'Qaeda cells are still operating in Somalia and in Bosnia; that there are training camps in Indonesia and the Philippines and that, nearer home, there may well be Al'Qaeda networks in Germany. Then we have our own home base in the United Kingdom to consider—at one stage described as "a safe haven for terrorists".
	I would like to think, as I am sure would your Lordships, that, after the efforts of last week, we now have some good and, dare I say, much-improved legislation of an anti-terrorist kind in place, in order to do our part in helping to close the net on the terrorist networks of the planet. I would also like to think that our position will not be weakened or undermined by any more European Union treaty deals, reached over our heads, bypassing the scrutiny of this House among other places, and imposed on us by prerogative decision, without necessarily any relevance to terrorism. That aspect was dealt with last week, and I hope that we can put such distractions behind us when focusing on the need to close in on global terrorism wherever it is found.
	That is the home front. World-wide, the requirement is very clear: we must stick very closely—and not everyone will like this—with the Americans. The President, George Bush, said recently that the Euro-allies "have a tendency to wilt". I feel with him. After the weekend, when there were distinct tones of anti-Americanism coming from some EU leaders, I can understand why the Americans feel a little uneasy about the commitment of their European allies—not their British allies; about them I think that they have no doubts at all. The commitment demonstrated by the Prime Minister is much admired and is very strong. For the rest, however, the message which needs to be asserted even more strongly than in the past is that we must move very closely with America in the next phases of the anti-terrorist campaign.
	I read a speech by the Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Michael Boyce, with some puzzlement. The implication that there was a divergence from the American view and that we had a different way to go was quite wrong. I do not think that there is a divergence or a choice. As for the squabble over who should be part of the Afghanistan force, what part the rapid reaction force should play in it and whether there should be a wider remit, this is a terrible distraction from the main focus on which international effort must be aimed. It is very good that, as I understand it, it is to be led by this country.
	I hope that we do not spend too much time in endless discussions about whether this is a moment for the European Union to assert its super-state role, to project its power in the world, and so on. These are distractions from the task. There seems to be a constant confusion between the sort of partnership of sovereignties seen in NATO, which works extremely well, and this idea of the pooling of sovereignties. I hear this even in some of the things said by the Foreign Secretary. It is a quite different and unworkable concept when it comes to dealing with security, foreign affairs and issues such as finding a solution for the Afghanistan problem.
	Instead of bickering, the task is now to focus on the real issues post-phase one, after the defeat of the Taliban, and those real issues loom up and demand our attention. They are, first, the tidying up of the Afghanistan security threat. Secondly, to look at ways in which the festering terrorism of the Middle East can be contained. The idea that came from the European Union at the weekend—that monitors should be put all over the Occupied Territories—was quite barmy. I am very glad that the British Government shot it down at the United Nations. There is no doubt that Hamas must somehow be eliminated before it takes over the whole area, and that Mr Arafat and senior Palestinians must somehow be given the backbone and determination to do it. That is the first task.
	The second task is to go on clearing out the Al'Qaeda cells. There is growing evidence that they have not only weapons and plans but also access to nuclear and to biological materials. There is evidence that the Pakistani nuclear programme somehow leaked into the hands of Al'Qaeda. It is a matter of the highest priority that this issue be addressed very sharply and very soon.
	Finally, we need new thinking about our military and security deployments, operations and resources. Obviously a huge new resource has to go into intelligence—where there was a catastrophic failure, as the Financial Times set out in some fascinating articles. I am glad to hear the Secretary of State for Defence talking about more men on the ground in the homeland. In other words, more emphasis on bodies like the Territorial units, reflecting the increased emphasis that the Americans are putting on their own homeland defence through the National Guard. If that is serious—and I hope that it is—and the regular army supports it, which I hope that it does, then we will need some changes in the provisions to encourage more Territorials, who will be increasingly needed to ensure our own home security.
	There are some new ideas evolving on how our Armed Forces should work and on how our non-armed anti-terrorist forces should be mobilised. I do not think that these new ideas will come from Laeken—on which we shall shortly hear a Statement—or from those who are hostile to the Americans, or from those who said from the start that bombing would not work; it has. I hope that these new thoughts will come from the Government and, if they are bold enough, innovative enough and realistic enough, I happily stand here, as I have before, and say that we will continue to give them our full support.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I also look forward to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie. He has been very helpful and kind to me on a number of professional occasions in the past and I look forward to his many contributions in debate here.
	This is another unavoidably interim debate. No doubt there will be many more, as the situation continues to move in ways which none of us can predict more than a week or two ahead. It is remarkable how rapidly the Taliban regime has collapsed. As I read the American newspapers, I note a degree of happy triumphalism at what is seen to be a massive success for American arms. That is not the whole story. It is also a tribute to the pragmatism of many people in Afghanistan who clearly recognise that, when a fight is lost, the best thing to do is to surrender and, if possible, change sides.
	We do not yet have the successful construction of a successor regime. The Bonn agreement is very welcome. Translating the Bonn agreement into practice and having a stable government which maintains law and order across the whole of Afghanistan, however, is a very long way off, let alone the massive, costly and long-term reconstruction of Afghan watercourses, its agricultural base and the whole economy and society, which is a 10 to 20-year programme at least.
	The questions which I suggest we should be addressing today are these. First, how does the international community share the responsibilities of rebuilding Afghanistan and reintegrating it into the international system? Secondly, what role do the different parties—international institutions such as the UN, the various UN agencies and, of course, the European Union and NATO—play in this? What roles should the United States and the United Kingdom play in a large, ambitious and long-term task?
	Thirdly, how do we reinforce stability in the region around Afghanistan? I refer not merely to the Middle East, but also to south Asia. We on these Benches have said in every debate on this subject that the problem of Kashmir is part of the problem of Afghanistan. We saw that again with the attacks in New Delhi. So we must examine the security of the region as a whole, as well as that of central Asia.
	Fourthly, how much wider should the hunt for terrorist networks be drawn? Rogue states are again being cited—there are suggestions about Somalia, Iraq, Yemen and the like. And what do we have to do about the terrorist threat within the West? Lastly, what are the lessons for Britain?
	What comes next? Clearly, there must be nation building for Afghanistan. This is a long-term commitment for the global community. What we have learnt from Afghanistan and from some other states is that collapsed states export disorder: refugees, drugs and eventually even terrorists. It was the failure to help rebuild Afghanistan after 1989 which came back to haunt the United States and the international community. It was a classic mistake for the United States to walk away from Afghanistan so quickly and so easily after the Soviet withdrawal. We must not repeat that mistake, and we must not allow the United States to repeat it.
	We should, however, recognise how enormous the task may be. Afghanistan is not alone. If we are talking about rebuilding collapsed states and preventing weak states collapsing, the United States is already, of course, talking about Somalia—a state in which central order virtually does not run; about the Yemen; about Iraq—a state, again, where the central government, authoritarian as they are, do not control the whole territory; and about the Arab-Israeli conflict.
	In Britain, we are committed to nation building in Sierra Leone, in effect. We may well find ourselves committed to some kind of co-operative nation re-building in Zimbabwe after the course of the next year, if Zimbabwe turns out as badly as, sadly, it may do.
	The tensions of transition from traditional societies to modern social and economic life cause disorder across the whole of Africa and central, west and south Asia—that is, across Africa and the Middle East. And there will be more, including the collapse of regimes which are major oil producers. So we need to strengthen international institutions for this task. In previous debates a number of noble Lords have referred to how far we need to take into account the implications of the Brahimi report and a whole host of other proposals concerning the need to reform and strengthen the United Nations. That has not yet been done.
	We also need to insist—here I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Howell—that the United States remains engaged. There are many things in the current American debate which should leave us extremely worried. The phrase "super-powers don't do dishes" reverberates from discussions that I had in Washington some weeks ago. It indicates a degree of disdain for nation building—namely, that others do those things; that the role of the United States' allies is to come in behind and tidy up, or, as Admiral Boyce recently put it, "backfilling" for the United States, just as other nations occasionally backfill for Britain in other theatres.
	Backfilling for the United States is not a particularly glorious role for Britain. We must also insist that the United States remains engaged financially in a task in regard to which, in the US Congress, it is hard to get a commitment to the idea that the United States still needs to pay. I remember, in 1990, visiting someone I knew well on the National Security Council, and hearing in relation to eastern Europe the stern phrase: "Last time, we paid for you. This time, you are going to pay for them". There is a sense in which, although I welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech on the need for a new Marshall Plan for the region—and recognise how ambitious financially and multilaterally it is to use that sort of language—a Marshall Plan has to be a global commitment by all the advanced industrial countries. The United States cannot off-load that on to Europe. This means that the role of the European Union remains important. We need also to engage the Asian states and the richer Latin-American states, given our mutual interest in global stability, in controlling the flow of refugees and in maintaining access to oil.
	Where shall we be going next? There is much talk in Washington about moving on to Iraq, in spite of all the briefings that have appeared about the lack of evidence that Iraq really is involved in the Al'Qaeda network. Sadly, that is part of the triumphalism after the action in Afghanistan. Having seen the campaign go so well there, it is assumed that what worked there—in very different circumstances, with a very different structure of government and tribal societies—might possibly be transferred to Iraq. There have also been suggestions about Somalia and other countries.
	I very much hope that the British Government are setting their face firmly against such an extension and are using what influence they may have in Washington to put that case across. When I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago, I was saddened by the extent to which the tremendous warmth of feeling expressed by the Congressmen to whom we spoke in regard to how Tony Blair had supported the United States was without any expression of mutuality—without any sense that the United States should, therefore, listen to Tony Blair a little more in exchanges between the two countries.
	Clearly, what is needed in combating international terrorism and in pursuing the wider ramifications of the international terrorist network is closer co-operation among all democratic states. But that needs to be within the context of international law and through and within multilateral institutions, not by unilateral action and not—again, I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Howell—simply by clinging close to the United States whatever it does, accepting that treaties may be imposed over our heads, or torn up over our heads, by the United States without our having any influence. We need, instead, to be stressing in our relations with the United States, and with our major European partners and others, that as far as possible, if we are talking about the international community, it has to be a multilateral community.
	In that context, we have also to talk about the Arab-Israeli conflict. I was struck, when reading the coverage on Afghanistan in the Financial Times on Saturday, to see the passing comment that one had to understand that,
	"Sentiment towards the US in the Arab world is influenced mainly by US attitudes towards the Arab-Israeli conflict".
	If that is the case, we have to do something about the Arab-Israeli conflict. We cannot leave this entirely to the Americans; and we certainly cannot leave it to Prime Minister Sharon. The proposals for international monitors on the ground are a useful contribution to an extraordinarily difficult situation, which risks becoming worse within the next two or three weeks. We shall debate the matter briefly later today.
	Finally, what are the implications for Britain? The first is that the British Government are committing themselves to a series of heavy global commitments. The speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer indicates a long-term and significant increase in British contributions to international assistance for development across the world. Admiral Boyce's speech to RUSI clearly indicates also an expansion of Britain's military commitments and responsibilities.
	If we are talking about links with the United States and with Europe, I again disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell. Admiral Boyce signalled a number of areas in which British interests and American interests do not entirely go together. Therefore, the question of the balance that Britain must strike between the United States and our European commitments is extremely important for us to work out. One of my conclusions is that closer EU military co-operation is needed much more after the events of 11th September than previously.
	I regret that we have made so little progress towards the rapid reaction force. I regret, too, that some of our European partners, including the Italian and Belgian governments at Laeken at the weekend, seem remarkably unserious about it. If we are to be taken seriously in Washington, we need to have credible military forces that the United States feels are of some use in joint action. Otherwise, policymakers in Washington will leave us to do the dishes and clean up afterwards.
	The implications for British forces, about which my noble friend Lord Redesdale will say more, are complex. We have used special forces heavily in Afghanistan. The balance between the special forces and the infantry is one that we may need to look at again. We must consider British and European intelligence assets alongside American intelligence assets in the complex area of transnational terrorism, as well as failed states, which can raise all kinds of different assumptions of what we need to know. If we wish to learn from the Americans, we probably need to invest much more heavily in precision guided weapons. If we do commit ourselves long term to nation building, we need to think about how Britain makes a contribution to what we may have to call the "gendarmerie" function—the policing function that comes behind the first strike forces. We have to consider whether Britain should leave that to other states in a kind of role specialisation system, or whether we need to create a territorial reserve, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, so that we can send highly capable policing units abroad for extended periods. Those are large, complex questions that we shall no doubt debate again.
	We shall have to take on board the depth of British commitment that the Government have accepted. They will come back in the future with their budget for defence, overseas aid, and so on. In managing this complex situation—I know that there is a great distance to go before a stable Afghanistan is established, let alone a stable region beyond—we need to promote as broad a multilateral approach as possible.

European Council, Laeken

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall make a Statement on the European Council which took place in Belgium on 14th and 15th December.
	"The fight against terrorism remains uppermost in the minds of all members of the European Union. There remains unanimous support for the military action that has been taken in Afghanistan and a determination to continue our efforts to root out the Al'Qaeda terrorist network. The recent video of bin Laden demonstrates his guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. It brought home the sheer evil of bin Laden and his followers and their sick pleasure in the murders that they committed. No one can now dispute that ridding the world of the Al' Qaeda terrorist network is a job in the interests of us all.
	"The European Council welcomed the Bonn agreement between the Afghan groups. It gave strong support for the deployment of an international security force authorised by the UN Security Council, as called for by the Afghan parties in the Bonn agreement. The details of such a force must await the outcome of the meetings in Kabul between an international military team led by Major-General McColl and the interim authorities in Afghanistan. I can tell the House that Britain is willing in principle to lead such a force. It is likely to comprise troops from various countries—European and others. Friday's meeting of potential contributing nations was attended by a number of EU countries, as well as Argentina, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Jordan, Malaysia, Turkey and the United States. The British contingent is likely to be from 1,000 to 1,500, though I stress that that is not yet decided. We expect the resolution to be passed by the UN Security Council later this week.
	"The US has given its full help and support for the security force and we hope to have lead elements in place shortly.
	"This force was a critical part of the agreement reached in Bonn on 5th December for the establishment of a provisional government in Afghanistan. There has been a brilliant victory over the Taliban who have ceased to be the Afghan government. That is a welcome liberation. But we know that it is only the start of enabling Afghanistan to cease being a failed state and to become a responsible partner in the region. The situation in Afghanistan remains fragile; the new political process remains in its infancy. There is therefore an urgent need to ensure that as the war is being won, we play our part in securing the peace.
	"The European Council took stock of European security and defence policy. We are determined to finalise soon the EU's arrangements with NATO. That will enhance the EU's capability to carry out crisis management operations over the full range of the so-called Petersberg tasks.
	"The European Council met amid continuing and appalling violence in the Middle East. In our view, and that of all our partners, the only basis for peace in the Middle East is full recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. The members of the European Council will continue to do all that they can individually, and through the good offices of the Secretary-General, Javier Solana, to whom I pay tribute, to help to create the circumstances in which the violence can be halted and the dialogue resumed.
	"The European Council's other main purpose was to prepare for discussion on the future of Europe. It now looks increasingly likely that 10 new countries will join the European Union in 2004. We welcome that. Their accession will contribute to peace, stability and prosperity in Europe—ours as well as theirs. But it is obvious that the European Union, with 25 and more members, cannot work in the same way, with precisely the same constitution, as it has with 15. Decision-making will need to be streamlined. EU laws increasingly will need to take the form of framework legislation, with the details of implementation being left to the member states. It is already the task of the European Council to give strategic direction to the European Union as a whole. But carrying that strategic direction into practice will mean looking again at the size and role of the Commission, reviewing the workings of the existing presidency of the Union, which presently changes hands every six months, and managing the business of the various specialist Councils in a more coherent way. That was why at Nice, a year ago, when we opened the way for enlargement, we also agreed that there should be another intergovernmental conference in 2004 and why we are now setting up a convention to prepare for that conference by detailed examination of all these issues.
	"The basic agenda for that conference was agreed at Nice. The kinds of questions which will need to be asked are set out in the declaration of heads of government issued at Laeken at the weekend.
	"That declaration, which I welcome, acknowledges the contribution that the European Union has made to peace, stability and prosperity in all our countries, but also the extent to which it has had to deliver results to its citizens on jobs, the single market, the fight against crime and a safe environment. The British view, which is widely shared, is that while it is right to co-operate ever more closely with our partners, democratic accountability is fundamentally and ultimately rooted in the member state. As the declaration says, Europe's citizens expect more results and better responses to practical issues, not a European superstate or European institutions inveigling their way into every nook and cranny of life.
	"The Laeken declaration and the convention give us the opportunity to take a serious look at the division of competences between the Union and the member states. For the first time in the Union's history, we shall be looking at the prospect of restoring some tasks to the member states. We now also have the chance to open up the European institutions to greater public scrutiny. The role that I want to see our Parliament playing in policing that process is now explicitly recognised.
	"The convention which we have now established will be chaired by former French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing who, when President of France, played an instrumental role in bringing the European Council into being. It will work for a year. Each national parliament will have two representatives as members of the convention. The regions will be represented as observers and there will be ample opportunity for views from all sectors of public opinion to be fed into the proceedings. Consultations will, of course, be held in the usual way on who our parliamentary representatives will be. The convention will present options to heads of government, who will determine whether those options should lead to changes in the treaty. Those changes would be made by unanimous agreement of governments.
	"In the aftermath of 11th September, the European Council welcomed the agreement that has been reached on a European arrest warrant. We also agreed to give fresh impetus to delivering our objectives on asylum and illegal immigration. That will mean return agreements with third countries and a new agreement on handling asylum seekers, including common standards on asylum procedures and reception. We have agreed to improve co-operation on our external border controls. These are all areas on which we need common action within Europe and the strength of a united European approach in dealing with the rest of the world. I hope that we shall see some agreements concluded in the coming year on all those points.
	"Once again at this Council, Britain played its full part constructively and achieved the outcome it desired. Europe faces huge challenges ahead, as it enlarges to 25 and, over time, to more than 30 countries covering territory from the Atlantic to the Black Sea, with 500 million citizens in the EU: challenges over the completion of the single market with a single currency; over economic reform; over making European security and foreign policy work; and over giving Europe the institutional framework to allow it to function effectively. Those debates matter to Europe. They matter fundamentally to Britain. The days of isolationism are gone. Our role now is to be a leading partner in shaping the Europe of the future, not following reluctantly the shape moulded by others. We are playing that role now. We will continue to do so."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. Laeken was an important summit, which reinforced the impression that the integrationist movement in Europe has stepped up a gear, although the Prime Minister keeps saying that things are coming Britain's way.
	What is Britain's way, as far as the Government are concerned? Does it, for instance, include seeking to take powers to introduce EU third pillar measures by secondary legislation? Does it include trying to take powers to adopt a European arrest warrant without this Parliament having the right to amend it—something that the Government would have done if your Lordships' House had not denied them the power to do so only last week? Has the noble and learned Lord noted that the Belgian Prime Minister has declared that the European arrest warrant will be a "unique instrument" and as important in the police and judicial sphere as the euro is in the economic sphere?
	When do the Government propose to introduce legislation to bring in the arrest warrant? Can the noble and learned Lord give us an undertaking that he will publish a full list of those orders that the Government intend to bring in under Part 5 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act? The Prime Minister talks about involving national parliaments, but his actions increasingly show that he wishes to take things the other way.
	Furthermore, before the Laeken process begins, we need to consider the Nice process. When will the Nice treaty be ratified by all member states and when will it come into force?
	The Laeken presidency conclusions, under EU defence and security policy, say that their aim is,
	"progressively to take on more demanding operations"
	in the field of defence and security. Can the noble and learned Lord tell us what is envisaged? Will he spell out the contribution of EU member states to the war on terrorism so far? Do not recent events underline the fact that the United States is the bedrock of the world security system and that Britain's most vital national interest lies in maintaining that alliance? Nothing that happens to Europe must be allowed to undermine that position.
	Specifically, on the announcement in the Statement that Britain would play a role in the peacekeeping force, when will the number of British troops to go overseas be decided? Does the noble and learned Lord have any idea how long they will be garrisoned? Is there a prospect of a permanent garrison in Afghanistan? The noble and learned Lord has kindly explained the rules of engagement privately to some of us, for which I am grateful. In the event of British troops being involved in peacekeeping, will those rules of engagement change?
	The EU has pledged £60 million of aid to Afghanistan from the total community budget. How does that compare with provisions from our Government and other national governments? Is the noble and learned Lord satisfied with that level of commitment?
	The Laeken Summit was historic in many ways, one of which was that it will be the last one before the euro comes into physical reality on 1st January. We wish the participants well, although we also remain convinced that it is not in our national interest to join. Was there discussion at Laeken of the five economic tests? What did the Prime Minister tell his partners when they asked about a date for a referendum on the euro—or did he say that his lips were sealed?
	A number of stores and other organisations have said that they will now accept payment in euros. Will that also be the case for government offices and agencies? Will it be possible for an EU resident to pay in euros for a driving test or a prescription dispensed in hospital? After all, was that not part of the National Changeover Plan, on which so much as been spent?
	Turning to agriculture, I wonder whether the Prime Minister took the opportunity of raising the French ban on British beef, following the judgment by the European Court of Justice. Does the noble and learned Lord have any news on when the ban will be lifted? The Prime Minister has said that former President Giscard d'Estang was his candidate to lead the convention. Did he seek to raise the lifting of the beef ban before his expression of enthusiastic support for a French candidate?
	Can the noble and learned Lord say a bit more about the membership of the convention? Will members of the official Opposition in this country be included? Bearing in mind that we have a bicameral legislature, can he give us an assurance that a member of your Lordships' House will be sent? The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, would no doubt make an important contribution.
	What are our objectives in the convention? The Prime Minister has agreed with the Belgian Prime Minister that nothing is taboo on the agenda. Does that include a written European constitution, binding on Britain, and a directly elected president of Europe? Do the Government support those objectives?
	We differ from our friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who openly support some of those integrationist objectives, whereas we do not. Where do the Government stand? Where in the drive to European integration do they plant their standard and say, "This far and no further"? Will they simply go on as far as they think that they can get away with? Will the noble and learned Lord agree to an early debate on Europe so that the Government can set out their position to Parliament well before the convention is set up?
	Finally and briefly, I am sorry to raise a more disagreeable matter, unrelated to Laeken, but since the Leader of the House is here I could not resist asking whether he could say anything about the extraordinary reports in the weekend press about the surveillance of the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. The noble Lord is a much respected Member of the House. He is not here, but I apologise to him for not having warned him that I would raise the matter. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord may not be in a position to say whether the noble Lord has been the subject of surveillance, but, as Leader of the House, will he ask the Foreign Secretary to explain the remarks, as reported in the press, of Mr MacShane? Has the Captain of the Gentlemen at Arms been contacted by Foreign Office Ministers over the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed? I know that the Leader of the House is as keen as I am to defend the privileges of this House. That includes ensuring that no Member of this House is subjected to bullying by Members of another place. I hope that this episode is not a sign of things to come.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the other place. I assure him that my remarks and questions will be limited to the Laeken summit.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, although Laeken was marred by minor squabbles about where agencies should be located, it was an extremely important summit. The House should appreciate and welcome the extraordinary fact that no fewer than 10 new member states are likely to join the European Union by 2004—which puts a great many concerns at rest.
	Can the noble and learned Lord say something about the candidature of Cyprus? Will it follow some agreement on unity between the Greek-controlled and Turkish parts of Cyprus? Is the noble and learned Lord able to comment on the opening of accession discussions with Turkey? Can he reiterate that for the United Kingdom, as for other EU member states, a crucial condition of membership must be the establishment and strong support of human rights in Turkey? We welcome the advances that have been made as a result of changes in that country's constitution.
	We much welcome the suggestion for a constitution that—to use the terms of the presidential conclusions—would clarify, simplify and adjust the divisions of competence between member states and the European Union. That might constitute the return of powers to member states. One of the issues that has soured relations between the EU and its member states has been the lack of clarity about competence. There could be constructive discussion of where competencies should lie. There is no reason for not recognising greater competencies for member states. It would be a great help to clarify the position and, significantly, to establish where the divisions fall.
	Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could say something about the suggestion that there should be greater reliance on framework laws, which would enable member states to complete the framework with their own implementation of its general principles.
	On accountability, we would like to hear more about who from the United Kingdom is likely to be involved. We hope that the convention will be fully in touch with the proposed civic forum. We have concerns about the nature of the leadership, in that it looks rather conventional in terms of the individuals chosen. It does not appear that there will be a great deal of room for individuals who have not up to now been within the EU leadership cycle—in particular, minority communities in all our societies, women and marginalised groups. We seek an assurance that the civic forum will be taken seriously and that the Government will do all that they can to encourage dialogue.
	If there is to be serious involvement of the people of Europe, as there must be, in the development of the European Union, we need to go beyond the convention to establish a parallel dimension of civic involvement within each member state and the European Union as a whole.
	We much welcome the suggestion that Britain could be in a leadership position by contributing between 1,000 and 1,500 troops to a peacemaking and nation-building force in Afghanistan. Can the Leader of the House say anything about the constitution of that body? Will the 1,500 troops be complemented by a civic group able to build an understanding of democracy and the rule of law? That is clearly a crucial part of any contribution that Britain can make. That development reflects recognition of Britain's responsible role in the battle against terrorism. Many other EU states are more than ready to contribute but, for reasons to do with the formulation of military policy, many have not been invited to contribute as much as they have offered. We may be able to rectify that in Afghanistan.
	I emphasise the important and crucial role of the European Union in bringing another element to bear on peace issues. Is it not important that the EU plays a greater role in the Middle East? We need to say loudly and honestly that the current destruction of the structures of law and order in the Palestinian territories is hardly conducive to the battle against terrorism within those territories. Do the Government have anything to say about the dangers of paving the way to a terrorist leadership of the Palestinian territories, instead of one that—for all its flaws—recognises that peaceful negotiation is the only way out of the current terrible situation? Will the noble Lord say something about the role of Britain and the European Union in the increasingly desperate crisis that is overtaking the Middle East?
	Finally, can the Leader of the House say something about the arrangements between European security and defence forces and NATO? The Statement makes a brief reference to the difficulty of establishing proper relations. We are conscious of the role of Greece in that respect but we would like some assurances. Clearly the relationship between European forces and NATO is crucially important in future diplomacy between the EU and the United States.
	I said "finally" but I have another question. Let us recognise honestly that no solution was found in respect of asylum policy. Does the Leader of the House agree on the crucial importance of common asylum conditions—relating to the Dublin convention, common standards of treatment and common recognition of the responsibilities that all in the European Union bear for dealing with asylum issues? Can the noble and learned Lord say anything further about the extent to which those objectives were achieved at Laeken?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the responses from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby.
	Britain's way is to be determined to be at the centre of Europe, influential, confident—not the Mr. Faint-heart of the past 15 years—powerful and able to give a lead that historically has long been lacking. Above all—I say this without presumption—Britain's way is to be able to bring the history and traditions of a long democratic life, which many of our colleagues in Europe have not had. We intend to play a powerful role that will be beneficial to our colleagues in Europe and to our country. That is Britain's way.
	The noble Lord asked me to consider publishing a list of secondary legislation in Part 5 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 and I certainly will. He said that Laeken was an integrationist meeting that produced an integrationist document. That is not so—for the reasons well itemised and scrupulously focused by the noble Baroness. Laeken proposed—I paraphrase fairly—that there should be framework legislation. One sees the virtue of that. We ought to use our history, distinct culture and traditions. I take as a fair analogy the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights, within which we now legislate domestically. We willingly subscribe to the requirement in the Human Rights Act 1998 that every Minister introducing a Bill must certify, deliberately and seriously, that the proposed legislation is compliant.
	The noble Lord asked about Nice, which we are working towards putting into effect. I do not imagine that the noble Lord thought, even in the run-up to Christmas, that I would be able to say when Nice will be ratified by all potential signatories. He asked me to comment on his proposition that the United States is the bedrock of the world's security system. It is—but it is not the sole component. Nor does the United States, in my experience and understanding, wish to be the sole component of that security. It wishes to have co-operation, which is why President George W. Bush has so frequently extolled the co-operation and the full-hearted support—standing shoulder to shoulder—that he has had from the current United Kingdom Government.
	The number of troops is between 1,000 and 1,500, although, as the Prime Minister's Statement made perfectly plain, those matters have not been absolutely finally decided. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, asked whether there is a prospect of a permanent garrison in Afghanistan. If he meant his question to be taken as he expressed it, then I would hope not.
	The noble Lord was very generous in saying that I had delivered on my undertaking to speak to him, to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, on the rules of engagement and other matters. If a change is required, obviously it must be put into effect immediately; but I rather doubt that there will be such a change. However, as the Prime Minister said, it is proposed that we should have the lead role.
	I do not know whether the five economic tests were discussed, possibly over cigars, but there could be nothing more interesting than asking about the five economic tests, even over a cup of tea and a sandwich. I do not know the answer to the critical question, which is about to raise calls for my resignation, of whether one may pay for one's driving licence in euros. What I do know is that Sir Stanley Kalms, who is a prominent donor to the Conservative Party and the controlling shareholder, I believe, of a well-known emporium known as Dixons, has said that he is content, happy and even rapturous to have euros handed over in exchange for a DVD—which is a digital video disc.
	There is no news on the ban on beef; one would hardly expect it as the judgment was given by the court only a few days previously.
	Will there be a written European constitution? I doubt that there will be one in my lifetime. Will there be an early debate on Europe? Yes, there will be. As my noble friend and Deputy Leader of the House, Lady Symons, pointed out to me, the date that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, wants to place in his diary—the correct diary, of course—is 17th January, when we shall consider, on Report, the relevant Bill.
	I come now to my noble friend Lord Ahmed and his alleged surveillance. I have made it a rule, which I have found to be a good guide throughout my life, not necessarily to believe everything that I read in the newspapers, particularly on Sundays. I do not know whether there was any surveillance of my noble friend, although I should think it unlikely. None the less, I believe—I read it in the newspaper, so I assume that I can rely on it—that he is intending to make a complaint to the relevant commissioner. That is the appropriate action to take. Nothing unlawful should be done to any citizen, including Members of this place or of another place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that no one should try to bully anyone in this House, not least because, at least in my experience, such attempts always boomerang.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, spoke about the 10 new member states, and she asked in particular about Cyprus and Turkey. The 10 candidate states are Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. The conclusions—I am happy to give this information—specifically state that
	"if the present rate of progress of the negotiations and reforms"—
	the noble Baroness is quite right about that—
	"in the candidate States is maintained",
	those 10 countries could be ready.
	So that is good news. In the case of Cyprus, it is also very heartening news that, after so many years of misery, and indeed bloodshed, at least some contact is being maintained between the two parts of that unhappily divided island.
	The noble Baroness asked me particularly about Turkey. The conclusion was that Turkey had made progress towards the political criteria, which has brought forward the prospect of Turkey's possible accession and certainly of the opening of accession negotiations. The conclusions state that
	"Turkey is encouraged specifically to continue its progress towards complying with both economic and political criteria, notably"—
	to deal with the noble Baroness's specific point—
	"with regard to human rights."
	I therefore give the noble Baroness the assurance that she seeks.
	The noble Baroness also rightly pointed out the heartening news that greater competences will either be transferred back or left with member states. That seems to be right as a matter of practical reality. I believe that such arrangements work better and tend to build up public confidence in the institutions of the Union.
	Certainly there will be consultations on the two United Kingdom members to the convention. I do not know whether there will be a member from your Lordships' House, although I did notice that a number of ears pricked up when that question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and by the noble Baroness. I have no news to bring.
	"Along the electric wire the message came:
	He is no better—he is much the same".
	I am afraid that I have no news hot from the press, but then one would hardly expect it. It is only Monday today, and they finished only on Saturday, I believe.
	Should civic groups be involved in nation building—one cannot even say reconstruction; it is the construction of a civil order—in Afghanistan? I should hope that that will be possible further down the line. I know that the noble Baroness's colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, has been very astute in trying to engage a wider public in civic and civil reform.
	The noble Baroness is in danger of becoming a lawyer. She said "finally" but then confessed her sin and said that she had another question to come. However, we lawyers are used to that as we have been transgressing in that manner all our lives. The issue of the Middle East is of central significance. That is why the Prime Minister's Statement referred to it and reiterated Her Majesty's Government's view that a viable independent Palestine is essential, not forgetting the rights of Israel, which as everyone knows has been under continued external attack since its birth.
	On the issue of the defence force and NATO, and in relation to security and defence policy, the Prime Minister said at one point in his Statement:
	"We are determined to finalise soon the EU's arrangements with NATO. That will enhance the EU's capability to carry out crisis management operations".
	I cannot go further than that, except to reiterate that sign of the Prime Minister's determination.
	The final point that the noble Baroness raised was on the Dublin convention. I think that most people who fair-mindedly examine that document cannot agree that it is an instrument of perfect utility. It needs to be re-examined and reformed. The noble Baroness also asked for my assent to the proposition that there should be a common European approach to the problem, and I agree. I agree also that we should look for common standards. I think that that was the entire thrust of Jack Straw's policy when he was Home Secretary, and it remains so now that he is Foreign Secretary.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, with reference to the European arrest warrant, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and is dealt with in paragraphs 17 and 45 of the Council's conclusions, did the Leader of the House notice the outspoken attack by an Italian cabinet minister on the integrity and honesty of Belgian justice? Before the noble and learned Lord dismisses that, will he remember that 300,000 people took to the streets of Brussels to protest against their legal system after the Dutroux case? What is his view on that matter given that the whole basis of the European arrest warrant must be that everyone has 1,000 per cent total confidence in the justice system of every other country? Only on that basis can one sweep away the safeguards that the citizens of this country have traditionally enjoyed.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do remember the demonstration, which was a very moving one. However, it was not a demonstration against the legal system; it was a demonstration focusing on the alleged—and perhaps the real—defects in the way in which the police had investigated, or failed to investigate, those particular gross criminal acts against young children. I think that the noble Lord will forgive me if I suggest that he puts it a little too high to say that one would contemplate extradition only if one had 1,000 per cent confidence in the other country's judicial system. I do not think that that is so. Indeed, the European arrest warrant was agreed in principle at Laeken. However, it will have to come before your Lordships for legislative scrutiny. It is likely to be included in primary legislation to be introduced next year. It will not comprise a sole item but will be part of a wider review of extradition in legislative terms.
	I do not think that one can claim that extradition works perfectly at the moment; there are substantial delays. In the increasingly globalised world in which we live, one wonders whether one ought to be too limited in considering the European arrest warrant. In the past the noble Lord has raised legitimate questions of public interest. There will be an opportunity for this House to scrutinise the concerns that the noble Lord and others have.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does not my noble and learned friend agree that securing a concerted approach to outstanding problems is to be welcomed to the somewhat carping attitude on such matters of the Leader of the Opposition in this House? Is it not important indeed that 10 new members of the European Union are closer to membership than they have ever been? Finally, will my noble and learned friend make it abundantly plain that Israel will continue to exist and that genuine attempts will be made to get a real solution to all outstanding problems? In that regard I hope that he will agree that President Arafat has an important part to play. But, equally, he must be genuinely committed to the whole peace process, including the right of Israel to exist.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right; there can be no question at all of any doubt about Israel's right to continued existence. Indeed, I do not think that any government in this country since the birth of the state of Israel has ever questioned that. I put it as plainly as I can: the continued existence of Israel as an independent state is a given. There is no question of derogating from that in any circumstance. Equally, it is important to bear in mind that the Statement refers to the,
	"full recognition of Israel's right to live in peace and security and the establishment of a viable Palestinian state".
	Some would say that those two elements go hand in hand.
	The noble Lord referred to the 10 new members. That is an extraordinary achievement. I shall be selective for a purpose which will emerge. I refer to Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic and Slovenia. If we remember for a second their history since 1945, to witness the day when they may join us will be quite extraordinary. I repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde; namely, that if you visit these different countries in Europe, you are humbled when bearing in mind how greatly they admire the traditions and institutions of this country. If, subject to the tests and preconditions to which the noble Baroness referred, they are able to join us, that will be so much the better for us and infinitely the better for them.

Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, although I welcome many of the points in the presidency conclusions and the declaration, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that the declaration raises an extraordinary number of questions for the convention? On a quick count there are 50 question marks in the relatively short text on the convention. Will the Minister invite his colleagues to give particular attention to two points in order to reduce citizens' discontent, which is one of the main purposes of this operation? The first is to concentrate on reducing secondary legislation. Primary legislation in the European Union is well monitored; secondary legislation is not well monitored, nor is the control which should reduce the amount of secondary legislation fully in effect. That is an extremely important point as regards citizens' reactions. Secondly, in order to improve the openness of procedures, will the Minister support the idea that meetings of the Council when it is legislating should in future be held in public, thus bringing the Council into line with legislative bodies in all democratic states?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. My predisposition is always towards openness as most central authorities that pray in aid secrecy do so for reasons which are not sustainable, legitimate or capable of being rationally defended. In respect of secondary legislation, again I rather sympathise with the noble Lord's sentiments. With regard to the proper scrutiny of secondary legislation, often I question whether we do our duty sufficiently in this House, let alone anywhere else. But perhaps when we improve the way we work we may better be able to discharge our duty.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, did the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House really mean to imply that my noble friend Lady Thatcher had been faint-hearted in relation to Europe? Does he consider that the Prime Minister would agree with that adjective, given that he seems to spend much of his political life seeking to model himself on my noble friend Lady Thatcher?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, perhaps both the adjective and the noun are wrong—not faint-hearted, but rather wrong-headed.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I certainly welcome the rousing statement by the noble and learned lord the Leader of the House in reply to Opposition questions and statements. But, unfortunately, I cannot reconcile that statement with what appeared in the EU declaration at Laeken. The whole document seems to me to be integrationist. It talks about a greater role in foreign affairs and security and in police and judicial matters. It also talks of economic co-ordination, a European constitution, a directly elected president and European parliamentary constituencies. What is more—apparently with the support of our own Prime Minister—the chairman and two vice-chairmen of the convention are well known rampant zealots for a single European state. That seems to underline the real purpose of the convention; that is, to provide and promote a single European state.
	Finally, how is the forum for organisations representing civil society to work, given that a large percentage of people who are very sceptical of the whole exercise will not be represented at all at the convention? How will their representations be considered? How will the forum that is referred to, presumably under the "etcetera" part of the institutions, be consulted? Will it mean, for example, that organisations such as the one I chair, Campaign for an Independent Britain, will be able to make proposals and suggestions and that they will be taken seriously by the convention?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, certainly organisations such as the organisation that my noble friend chairs will be able to make submissions and proposals. Indeed, I do not believe that there is any value in a forum unless it is inclusive in its remit; that is, willing to consider alternative points of view in all circumstances.
	I do not think that one can look at this declaration in the over-simplistic way in which some noble Lords have done in seeking to attach adjectives to it. I do not believe that there is a true opposition between the label "integrationist" and the label "subsidiarity". What we are looking for in the constitutional changes, or, I ought to say, the mechanical changes, to which the noble Lord referred, is efficient, effective, transparent, accountable institutions. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, would have favoured that. He has often been, rightly, a critic of the inefficiency, secrecy and non-accountability of some European Union institutions. At the same time, it is being suggested that framework legislation should be passed in Europe with a good deal more individual margin of appreciation for member states. I should have thought that those went happily together and that one without the other would not be agreeable.

Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord tells us that certain competences may be returned to the component nation states of the union as a consequence of Laeken. Does that mean that the acquis communautaire—we have always been told that it is completely sacrosanct and cannot be eroded—is considered no longer sacrosanct?
	On Cyprus, the noble and learned Lord said that there had been a great deal of unhappiness and bloodshed in recent years. He may be partly right about the unhappiness but, on reflection, does he agree that in the 25 years since partition became effective there has been little bloodshed, with no more than half a dozen people killed? That is in enormous contrast to the previous 15 years.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord takes a shorter historical perspective than I do. In many ways the history of Cyprus over the past 25 or 30 years has not been happy. The noble Lord speaks of only six deaths—he may be right—but I should have thought that those were six too many.
	On competencies, the conclusions are designed to bring about this situation. When national institutions, national legislative bodies and national governments are able to deal with matters which otherwise would be dealt with centrally they should be dealt with locally.

Lord Grenfell: My Lords, I welcome the Statement. I welcome the results of the Laeken Council. I think that the Belgian presidency did extremely well to get as much agreement as it did. The situation was not always easy.
	I have two questions. First, given the welcome prospect of as many as 10 countries now coming into the European Union within the next four years, was anything said at the council about the confidence of the European Union to accommodate the costs up to 2006 within the 1.27 per cent GDP ceiling?
	My second question relates to what appears to be a contradiction. The Laeken Statement says that in parallel with the proceedings of a convention a certain number of measures can already be taken without amending treaties. It lists proposals for adapting council structures and functioning. At the same time, it seems clear in the appendix that such an issue will be discussed in a convention. With discussions on two parallel tracks, are we in danger of being at cross purposes, making the operation of a convention somewhat difficult?

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important question. I shall deal with his second question first, if I may.
	The convention review is time limited to about a year. At the same time it is proposed to see whether there can be accommodation regarding existing practices. I agree with him that both parallels must not be allowed to operate so distinctly one from the other that muddle and confusion arise.
	It is believed that the 10 countries joining can be welcomed and the costs accommodated.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I have a couple of general questions for the noble and learned Lord. In answer to my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Lamont he says that we shall have the power to scrutinise this arrest warrant when it comes before us. Can he be specific? Is it not true that we shall not have any power to change what has been agreed at Laeken?
	On the general points, is it not pretty clear that one question which should be on the convention agenda is whether the European Union should continue in anything like its present form or whether it should be wound up and replaced by inter-governmental collaboration and free trade under NATO? After all, we all know that the European Union is at best irrelevant and at worst dangerous for its two pretended purposes: to guarantee peace and to foster trade. So why keep the European Union?
	Secondly, assuming that some of the other nations are foolish enough to proceed towards their megastate—and of course we cannot stop them—the question must be whether the United Kingdom should be part of it. Surely the noble and learned Lord agrees, because he is a reasonable man, that the Government cannot answer that question unless they have a clear idea as to what life might be like outside the European Union. So will the Government now agree to set up an impartial inquiry to inform the British people of the advantages and disadvantages of staying in or leaving the European Union and of just what liberation and riches might be ahead if we left the ill-fated venture? Surely it is only honourable for the Government to agree that we cannot have this debate unless we know what life might be like outside the thing altogether.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord says, "Surely we cannot have this debate". I must be mis-remembering. Most months we have a debate in your Lordships' House along the "Pearson of Rannoch lines" in one way or another—it may be only at Question Time. The noble Lord—here must be another budding lawyer—says, "Surely the noble Lord must agree"—that always implies that if one does not agree one is somewhat deficient "that the 10 candidates should be told how awful life might be within or without the Community". They know life outside the Community.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I refer to the people of the United Kingdom. I am quite content for this debate to take place in the United Kingdom.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the people of the United Kingdom have frequent opportunities—I think that they are called general elections—to express their views. We know what happened when the pro-Pearsons put forward their modest platform at the last election. I seem to remember that it did not achieve resounding support among the populace. Perhaps that is the fault of the populace but it might be the fault of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the debate at the last election was purely about the currency, not on whether we should be in or out.

Noble Lords: Oh! Sit down!

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, no, we should not stifle debate. We are part of a civilised parliamentary democracy. I am happy because the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, takes up my 20 minutes quite agreeably.
	On the European arrest warrant, that will have to be given effect in primary legislation. It will be part of a larger Bill to do with extradition. It will have to come to this House for scrutiny.

Afghanistan

Debate resumed.

The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, like many who have participated in the recent debates on the anti-terrorism legislation, I greatly value the opportunity afforded by this debate to move our focus away from the pressing issues of how we might deal with perpetrators of terror and on to the situation as it is emerging in Afghanistan.
	I am sure I speak for many when I say how much we are looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie. I remember meeting him last year at a very agreeable naval occasion in Portsmouth—it consisted of rather more than the tea and sandwiches to which the Lord Privy Seal referred earlier—when he spoke most movingly of Lord Nelson.
	I want to focus on some of the wider issues of this Question. Having a particular responsibility for the Portsmouth area I have been deeply impressed by, as well as concerned for, members of the Armed Forces who are participating, if only on the fringes, in the current conflict, especially where this impinges on the work of the Royal Navy. On Friday morning I was involved with a small group welcoming back to Portsmouth HMS "Marlborough" following her escort duties in the Saif Sareea duties in the Gulf. The professionalism and dedication that was displayed by those whom I encountered give me hope and confidence that other members of the Armed Forces will display an equal level of professionalism in the task they are undertaking. I am grateful to the Minister for what she said in that regard.
	The present Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, has been quoted as saying that a difference in emphasis will emerge in the next stage of the current campaign. I stress how much I appreciated the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in that regard. I am not in a position to comment on the validity of that view, but I strongly suspect that I am not alone in wanting to acknowledge that we are at war. Much of the language that we have chosen to use skirts around that issue, but it nonetheless remains a fact that our Armed Forces are engaged in a combat situation. That merits a wider, more open and ongoing public debate. For example, there may be ethical questions about bombing; there are also ethical questions about different types of bombing. Some of the questions that have been raised in your Lordships' House in recent weeks bear witness to that. The possible extension of the current campaign to include a range of other spheres of activity seems to provide a timely opportunity for us to question what are the appropriate limits of our involvement and commitment.
	I stand with a host of others in paying tribute to the Prime Minister for his handling of the war on terrorism and for the support that he has given to the United States of America. There has been a right place for the pursuit of justice, but the practical destruction of the Taliban, which we have witnessed in recent days, must give us pause for thought about where to turn to next.
	In particular, I draw the attention of noble Lords to the role of the United Nations in the events since September 11th. The Security Council has passed no fewer than four resolutions of varying length unequivocally condemning terrorism and calling upon all member states to work together urgently to bring justice to those who organise terrorist attacks. The Security Council has likewise supported the programme to establish representative government in Afghanistan through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Afghanistan. It has moved swiftly to bring forward the necessary humanitarian aid, another theme that noble Lords have touched on in various debates. However, apart from the generalised sense that the military campaign falls within the rights of member states to self-defence, the broader campaign has not received explicit support from the United Nations. I very much hope that the debate in the Security Council, which is going on as we speak, will result in support for a multinational peace-keeping force. I believe that the United Kingdom has a central part to play in such a role, one for which we are well-equipped and experienced. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, on the need for new and continuing intelligence services.
	It seems that we are at a particular turning point where justice may end and retribution may begin. I have to ask myself whether the total elimination of all those who are regarded as terrorists would in fact lead to the end of terror. I suspect that the experience of the United Kingdom is very pertinent in that respect and not one on which the United States can so readily draw.
	I am appalled by acts of terror and condemn them without reserve. Like many others, I found the recent bin Laden video as distasteful as I found the events of September 11th horrifying. I strongly echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, but I should "nuance" slightly his words about value. It is, I suggest, possible to observe negative values at work as well as positive ones. It is nonetheless incumbent on the House to ask searching questions about whether the focus should now be turned on identifying the root causes of terror, however they may be perceived and however uncomfortable we may find them. We should do that rather than unwittingly help to create a new generation of people who are embittered by the West.
	To turn to my classical and theological roots, this might be a moment for what is referred to in Ancient and New Testament Greek as kairos; that is, a moment of opportunity for decision, change and a new direction. The United States has won the sympathy of many nations around the world and has received the practical support of numerous allies. At this crucial moment—at this kairos—respect and restraint would only enhance our esteem for a country that has been so sorely affected by recent events.

Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank: My Lords, I first thank Members and the staff of your Lordships' House for making me welcome and for their advice. I am honoured to have become a Member of your Lordships' House and trust that I will be able to make an appropriate contribution. I am also pleased to find that I have served in the Army with a surprising number of the Doorkeepers; I joined my regiment with one of them more than 40 years ago.
	The operations in Afghanistan are continuing satisfactorily—very much more satisfactorily than some commentators predicted. The United States has given the coalition good leadership and only struck after calm deliberation and careful analysis. As the Minister said, the Taliban is in disarray and although some of its surviving members could still cause serious trouble, Afghanistan has been freed from a vile regime by what many Afghans—not just those supporting the Northern Alliance—see as a war of liberation, not as a war against Islam. There is every reason to suppose that in time Osama bin Laden will be captured or killed; he has no escape.
	Much progress has been made in Bonn and elsewhere to find a new government. We should not expect a tidy solution or one that is similar to that which developed democracies enjoy. In a land where tribe has often been against tribe and, within a tribe, family against family, power sharing does not come naturally. We have every reason to hope for better leadership; more representative leadership; leadership that is not feared or hated; and leadership that gives Afghans hope. However, we should not be surprised if there are some members of the new government with whom we are not comfortable.
	The scale of the humanitarian crisis has been nowhere near what was predicted by some. Great credit is due to our own NGOs and the DfID for their contribution to the international community's achievements.
	The conflict in Afghanistan that we are witnessing may well prove to be relatively easy when compared with what remains to be done in the struggle against international terrorism. We should remember that Saddam Hussein has killed more than 1 million Muslims and that he was decisively defeated in the Gulf War but that he remains a hero to many Muslims. It is important that Osama bin Laden appears, particularly to the younger generation, as the evil man he is—whose actions have brought nothing but misery.
	The recently secured and widely shown video—it has already been referred to—of a gloating bin Laden, should help. However, if he does emerge as a hero, the long struggle that we have embarked upon against international terrorism—which can certainly succeed—will be even harder and longer.
	The front-line states in the conflict deserve our understanding—none more so than Pakistan, which has many internal, cross-border and ethnic problems and disputes with its neighbours, mostly notably over Kashmir with India. The president, General Musharraf, has with great courage steadfastly supported the coalition against terror and Al'Qaeda, and he deserves our help and understanding in return.
	For far too many years, Pakistan was treated as an outcast. Certainly, some of her problems were of her own making. But those who cry for a quick return to democracy fail to understand that there has never been what we understand by "democracy" under the rule of either civilians or generals in Pakistan. President Musharraf has already shown that he is moving in the right direction and is committed to democratic rule. Once the crisis in Afghanistan is over, it will be indefensible for the people of Pakistan to be abandoned, as they have been before, by the richer members of the coalition.
	I want to raise two other matters. The first is the quite outstanding work of the BBC World Service. Between 60 and 70 per cent of Afghan male heads of households are regular BBC listeners. Broadcasts in Pashto and Persian have been increased to more than 90 hours a week since 11th September. BBC radio broadcasts are trusted and are the only way that many Afghans, a large percentage of whom cannot read or write, receive independent, impartial information. That will continue to be important when the fighting stops and Afghanistan is being rebuilt. The importance of the World Service needs to be recognised in the next spending round.
	Secondly, and lastly, the Armed Forces have yet again performed magnificently under particularly difficult and dangerous conditions. I am proud that the regiment in which I served and of which I am now the Colonel Commandant has yet again been in the van. Our forces remain respected and admired at home and overseas. But for how much longer can we go on taking that for granted? The defence programme was underfunded before 11th September. There is now a new commitment. Is there anything that can sensibly be given up now that we are involved in Afghanistan and the struggle against terrorism?
	Priorities—particularly spending priorities—are always difficult. But we must avoid falling into the trap of becoming so mesmerised by Osama bin Laden and Al'Qaeda that other key parts of defence are neglected and underfunded and we are found unprepared when confronted by a new threat. For we live in dangerous times and we can be absolutely sure that new threats will appear.

Lord Inge: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord on his excellent maiden speech. His time as CDS, when considerable change was taking place in the Armed Forces and when those forces were very heavily committed operationally, will be a great asset to our discussions on defence and on the wider, important geopolitical issues.
	Perhaps I may pick up two points in his speech. First, I reinforce what the noble and gallant Lord said about the importance of the BBC World Service. I sense that many people do not realise what wonderful work it does on behalf of this nation and in a wider capacity.
	Secondly, I refer to the noble and gallant Lord's mention of Pakistan. He did not say that his personal relationship with General Musharraf was a key part in helping Pakistan to come on side during this very important time. I agree absolutely with what he said. General Musharraf took an important and also very brave step in supporting the battle against the Taliban and Al'Qaeda. He also said rightly that it would be a terrible mistake if we were to walk away from Pakistan after the support and assistance which it has given us.
	I want to focus, first, on the military campaign. I am most grateful to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for providing us with very helpful briefings about the situation as it has progressed. Like many others, I have been greatly heartened by the success to date of the military campaign. Its progress has been far quicker than I believe many of us expected. The combination of the devastating impact of US air power and the Northern Alliance, brilliantly and bravely encouraged by British and US special forces, has proved highly effective. I also praise—although it has had a much lower key role—the air refuelling fleet of the Royal Air Force. Without its assistance, the United States naval forces could not have taken such an effective part in the campaign. Certainly those forces destroyed the will and fighting effectiveness of the Taliban, although it is too early to say whether we have seen the last of them.
	They also inflicted considerable damage on the Al'Qaeda organisation. If we get bin Laden, I believe that the military campaign in Afghanistan can be hailed a triumph. But, as the noble Baroness, the Minister, has been right to remind us, we are only at the beginning and there is a long way to go before we can say that the Al'Qaeda organisation no longer poses a serious threat. Certainly, after the success of the initial campaign, it would be a bad mistake if we thought that we could sit back, believing that the worst was over either for Al'Qaeda or for Afghanistan.
	I know that we are concentrating on Afghanistan, but a number of noble Lords have already mentioned the importance of the tragic, ongoing crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. That deserves as much direct attention from America and Europe as does the war against international terrorism. While there is no sign of establishing a viable Palestinian state, the terrorists of the Al'Qaeda organisation will continue to believe that they have a cause.
	Perhaps I may now focus again on Afghanistan and refer to the situation there, the role of the international security force and its command and control arrangements. I recognise that the meeting in Bonn was a great achievement and, certainly, much better than many expected. But, equally, we cannot divorce the present situation in Afghanistan and the way ahead from the country's turbulent history. More recently, there has been no peace since 1973, and in the past five years Afghanistan has not existed as a functioning state.
	Even the Northern Alliance, which has had some success, consists of five or six tribal warlords, and their loyalty to the new government is at least questionable. The Northern Alliance has a history of changing sides and of resentment and suspicion towards foreigners. Revenge features high on its list. It will be a very long time before we see a viable state and viable Armed Forces there. That means that we must spend a lot of time on that country. We are in for a long haul and it will cost a great deal of money. I recognise, of course, that we cannot simply walk away from Afghanistan, as happened in 1989.
	That said, I have great difficulty in understanding what will be the role of the international security force. It all seems to be rather vague at the moment. There is talk of maintaining only Kabul and perhaps its surrounding areas and some of the other towns where the UN mandated force might be deployed. But what will happen elsewhere in the country? It is also said that Afghan military units will be withdrawn from Kabul and elsewhere. However, I believe that that will be difficult to achieve. And what if those units do not agree and refuse to move or hand in their arms? Shall we be prepared to fight them? I believe that we must consider that before the force deploys.
	There is talk of a training task, but we must recognise that the training standards of the forces being deployed from the various nations vary considerably. Finally, there is talk of protecting aid convoys. We are trying to achieve that in a country that is two-and-a-half times the size of France and where the terrain is difficult and rugged.
	I am conscious that all that sounds very negative and that Afghanistan needs real help. Certainly, if the Armed Forces are deployed there, they will have my strongest support. But Her Majesty's Government should be in no doubt about the challenge that we may be asking our Armed Forces to undertake. They will be doing so at a time when they are already dangerously over-committed; at a time when, if they are committed to Afghanistan, we shall have very little left to deal with the unexpected; and at a time when they are under-recruited and when the defence budget is already underfunded.
	The operational commitment has—to use a phrase which I dislike but which people seem to understand—"mission creep" written all over it. The Government must prevent mission failure.
	I know it is early days, and I know that General McColl is still on his recce, but I hope that when he returns they will listen careful to what he says, to what the Chief of the Defence Staff says, and to what the Chief of the General Staff says. If we deploy a force to Afghanistan, it must be clear that the Government understand what that force will face. The force has to be properly structured; it must be competent, by which I mean that it is prepared to fight if necessary; it must be large enough; it must have adequate reserves; and multi-nationality must not be taken to too low a level so that the fighting cohesiveness of the force is not undermined.
	On the command and control of that force, I have heard three options suggested. The first is the United Nations. I am glad to hear that that is unlikely to happen. I have great respect for the United Nations and some of the roles that that organisation undertakes. Clearly, it could be a UN-mandated force, but the UN cannot command awkward, difficult, dangerous and complicated military operations. Secondly, it has been suggested that Europe should take command. I belong to the school that believes that Europe should do more, but we are a long way from forming the European rapid reaction force, and the military structure in Brussels is nothing like ready to command something as complicated as that.
	That leaves us with the United States, which is my favoured option. Frankly, even if the Americans are under a central command, that is not an ideal option because they will be concentrating on the fight against international terrorism. My biggest concern is that unless they have troops on the ground they will not concentrate or focus their minds in quite the same way. It is disappointing to hear the Americans say that already they are overstretched when I consider how overstretched the British Armed Forces are, and given the immediate, practical and real support that we gave the United States after those dreadful events on 11th September. I hope that somehow we can persuade the United States to provide forces that will stand shoulder to shoulder with ours if we decide to send forces to Afghanistan, which appears to be inevitable.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, although the convention is that only the immediately following speaker congratulates a maiden speaker, I hope that I have the indulgence of the House to comment on the outstanding speech that we have heard from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank. That was not at all unexpected in view of his distinguished career. We look forward to hearing much more from him in the House in the future.
	Not one noble Lord who spoke in the debates when the House was recalled during the Recess could have believed that at this date, barely three months later, we would be in the present position, either militarily—with the Taliban not entirely extinguished, but no longer in control of any region in Afghanistan—or politically—with the Bonn meeting of representatives from the four major groups in Afghanistan—the Northern Alliance, the former King's group, the Cyprus group and the Peshawar group—all agreeing on an interim executive and an interim council to govern until the spring when a Loya Jirga should convene to start to discuss a new constitution.
	The interim government is due to commence on Saturday, 22nd December. While the situation is extremely fragile and the problems enormous, it is still a huge step forward. There are misgivings outside and inside Afghanistan, but I do not believe that one could continue in foreign affairs or diplomacy if one were not a perennial optimist. However, one also has to be a realist. One has to hope and to work for the best, but to be aware of what could be the worst. Nowhere is that more true than in Afghanistan.
	However, it is not helpful for commentators to harp constantly only on the negative and to carp if they cannot have the ideal instantly. Courageous and patient negotiators such as Mr Brahimi and others, deserve great praise for what they have achieved. I echo what my noble friend Lady Symons said about that in her opening speech. The Afghans, in Bonn and in Afghanistan, also deserve great praise. They have reached a compromise and are struggling to make matters work.
	Sometimes I lose patience with outside critics (often in the media) who, with little detailed knowledge or sensitivity, make instant judgments based on their own cultural prejudices of groups and individuals inside Afghanistan, be it the forces of the Northern Alliance or others. Of course, I do not mean that we should suspend judgment, but some understanding of circumstances, history and context should be brought into play.
	Inside Afghanistan, not everyone is content with the Bonn agreement; for example, Uzbek General Abdul Rashid Dostum, who controls a large region around Mazar-i Sharif, believes that his faction has not been given enough power in the new executive. The Pashtun spiritual leader, Sayed Ahmed Gailani, is also critical of the agreement, and the former President Rabbani, who was persuaded to stand aside for the new structure is, perhaps understandably, also less than happy with the new arrangements.
	Looking at the new executive, one sees real grounds for hope that it may work. Inevitably, it is headed by a Pashtun leader, Hamid Karzai, who appears to enjoy the confidence of most. Three key ministries are headed by Tajiks who were close to Ahmed Shah Massoud, who was assassinated on 9th September, undoubtedly by Al'Qaeda. Many, like myself, consider that his loss was a tragic blow to Afghanistan and welcome the presence of the people whom he trusted in the new government. They include Dr Abdullah Abdullah as foreign minister; Yunis Qanuni, who led the Northern Alliance delegation in Bonn and who was given the honour of delivering the eulogy at Massoud's funeral, as interior minister; and Mohammed Fahim, who succeeded as military commander of the alliance on the death of Massoud, as defence minister.
	An issue of enormous sensitivity and importance is the place of women in the future of Afghanistan. That is an issue dear to my heart, as it is to many others in this House. I believe that it is important to remember that politics is the art of the possible. It is most important to listen to the women of Afghanistan and with all means at our disposal to support them in the way in which they choose to proceed. They have various opinions, but it is worth looking at what two of the women who attended the Bonn meeting said. Fatima Gailani, who was with the former King's delegation, said:
	"We do not want things that will lead to a backlash. I just want three things—education, work, politics. If we have these we can build on them".
	Ansia Ahmadi, who was in Bonn with the Northern Alliance delegation, said:
	"I wear the veil because I want to, not to please the men round the table".
	As my noble friend Lady Symons said, there will be two women in the new government. One of the deputy leaders in the new government will be a woman. The name of Dr Sima Samar, who is a Hazara, has been mentioned.
	Those are small steps, but they are enormously important for women in Afghanistan. I believe that we would do a disservice to Afghan women if from outside the country we appeared to want the impossible immediately. That does not mean that we should not do everything possible to encourage and to support their progress along the paths that they choose.
	I am afraid that whatever can go wrong probably will go wrong. Enormous progress has been made along the way to better governance for Afghanistan and a better life for its people. We must do everything that we can to help. We must not impose our ideas, our norms or our ways, but assist the Afghan people, men and women, to do things their way to achieve that better life. It is only right that we provide whatever appropriate support we can, including, if necessary, our Armed Forces.
	I welcome the Statement today by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister which we have just heard repeated in this House, that in principle Britain is willing to lead an international security assistance force. I am confident that our forces, if deployed, will provide whatever is needed in whatever leadership role is asked of them with their usual high standards of professionalism and expertise.

Lord Bramall: My Lords, it was good to hear my noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie make his most excellent and wise maiden speech. He has had much recent experience in troubled times. No one knows better the delicate balance and interrelationship between the political and military imperatives that exist in any crisis situation. He will have so much to contribute in your Lordships' House.
	I want to make three points. First, as has been said, the military campaign in Afghanistan has so far gone extremely well. All concerned deserve congratulations, in particular the commander-in-chief of the US central command, General Franks, who has organised and co-ordinated the land/air battle with skill and a strong degree of sensitivity. His success has been due, first, to the fact that, as my noble and gallant friend said, he was initially patient and did not rush in before he had gathered intelligence and could be selective in his targeting; secondly, because he increasingly related the air bombardment to the ground action undertaken, largely and sensibly, by indigenous forces; and, thirdly, because the United States was presumably prepared to provide sufficient gold to enable field commanders to persuade large numbers of the opposition to give themselves up and even change sides without too prolonged and costly fighting, although I imagine that the going became a little rougher as the Al'Qaeda were cornered. Anyhow, that famous Chinese general and tactician of 500 BC, Sun Tsu, would no doubt have thoroughly approved.
	As a result, the most impressive results in destroying the power of the Taliban have been achieved far quicker than many of us dared hoped. In all this the American marines and special forces and our own special forces have clearly played a significant part in advising local forces of the Northern Alliance and other factions and specifically in directing the air effort to both Taliban and Al'Qaeda targets and also by providing maximum fire support to friendly forces on the ground. As has been said, the Royal Air Force has played a big role in photo-recognisance and air refuelling. We should be grateful to them all and very proud of our own country's contribution.
	Now the remaining Al'Qaeda bases, hideaways and training camps must be destroyed. Osama bin Laden, who may well, for all we know, now be in Pakistan, must be isolated from any network in that area or anywhere else, and, if possible, put out of action for good. But I have always felt that the network, much of which lies elsewhere than in Afghanistan, and some of it much nearer to home, has always in some ways been a more important target than the figurehead himself, whose mantle could so easily, while various issues remain unresolved, be assumed by others.
	My second point is that having been so successful so far, I, too, like my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge, hope that we do not spoil it by forcing formed bodies of British troops on to reluctant Afghans, to do heaven knows what for heaven knows how long. It would surely be tactless to those who have done the lion's share of the fighting; their precise task would seem still to be obscure; and, as the realities of non-Muslim forces getting involved in internal domestic power struggles and squabbles sinks in, their safety could become increasingly precarious.
	Such deployment would also significantly increase overstretch and it is highly doubtful whether the necessary support services, not least the medical services, could be provided without irreparable damage being done elsewhere. For all those reasons it must surely be contrary to military advice. But if I am wrong about that no doubt the Minister will correct me. Only in the context of humanitarian aid under UN mandate could an intervention such as this be seen to be justified.
	I would therefore plead for the most thorough consultation with the people on the ground and not just in a European forum, as to what kind of force or organisation is needed. Also, like my noble and gallant friend, I hope that the general officer who has been sent out there, when he comes back will be listened to carefully as to what he thinks will and will not work, and that there will not be some preconceived idea which does not fit in to his report. I also hope that we shall not be contriving to create a democratic Afghanistan with full human rights, long after the military aims have been fully met. That must surely be left to the Afghans with the maximum encouragement and financial aid from outside.
	My third and last point—this has already been touched on—is that I wonder, when our Armed Forces are needed as much as they are respected, what possessed the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence to raise in a very long speech delivered to a seminar at King's College London the spectre of yet another defence review, albeit dressed up as a new chapter of the last one. Of course the JIC should be making an up-to-date assessment of the relevant threats post 11th September. That is its job. An intelligence effort should be strengthened. After all, the only sensible way to deal with terrorism is to be forewarned.
	In the light of that assessment, the chiefs of staff should be revising organisation and deployment of forces at home and overseas; and the home commands, in consultation with the home department, should, if necessary, be revising plans to deal with a variety of crises situations, in particular, how to make best use of our splendid reserve forces, as has already been said. All that is their job, but it should be part of an ongoing process in any efficient and flexible organisation.
	But to announce in public in a speech—much of which admitted, not unreasonably, that the situation may not have changed that much and that there are no obvious reasons why the presently organised Armed Forces should not be capable of reacting effectively to any new situation—that now there would be a formal review, a new chapter, run by a small caucus of the central staff, and which proudly boasted that the Treasury were in from the outset, can only set alarm bells ringing among those desperately trying to see that the last review—which incidentally fully took into account international terrorism and the threat of religious fundamentalism—was fully implemented in terms of manpower, equipment and money.
	For however it is dressed up, however the approach to this chapter is paved with good intentions, any one with any experience in Whitehall will see this as a golden opportunity for the Treasury to question the sensible and fully agreed parameters of the Strategic Defence Review and reduce still further in cash flow terms the already underfunded and overstretched defence programme. This can of course only reproduce the uncertainly which was so powerful in the past among middle piece officers and senior non-commissioned officers, all of whom are so vital for retention and manning.
	The organisation and speed of reaction of our forces works—as has been manifest over and again. After all, we sent a task force to the Falklands with four days' notice; we have long had a spearhead battalion at immediate readiness; we have special forces grouped for quick reaction, a Marine Commando Brigade, an Air Assault Brigade, a Strategic Reserve Division and a Rapid Reaction Corps all designed for rapid deployment anywhere in the world. If it works, why try to fix it? No two crisis situations will ever be exactly the same—as my noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank has said. What is needed is a general combat capability over a wide spectrum of threats and great flexibility in its usage. Of course, that is exactly what the Strategic Defence Review provides.
	Finally, with your Lordships' indulgence, I should like to pay a short tribute to the late Lord Carver. Over the years, he was a most regular attendee of your Lordships' House and often a committee chairman. His speeches in debates such as this were keenly looked forward to, as he was a brilliant and erudite speaker with great experience behind him.
	Although his obituaries may to some extent have dwelt on his brusqueness and intellectual self-confidence, noble Lords will have experienced nothing but courtesy and kindness from him in his dealings in your Lordships' House. As someone who served under him in Normandy and north-west Europe, I can vouch for his excellence as a commander in war. Clear headed and calm under fire, he was always, like the great Duke of Wellington, to whom he was related through his mother, where he was most needed in the battle. He was ready to take clear-cut decisions, however tough, and to seize tactical opportunities as they occurred, while at the same time being considerate of the lives of the soldiers under him. In this, he was everything that a soldier should be.
	Michael Carver was also, in peacetime, a highly civilised human being—a man of letters and of culture. Those who knew him well—and I count a great number in your Lordships' House—will miss him very much indeed.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, in his tribute to Lord Carver, whom he certainly knew much better than I. However, I recall that he had an original and questioning mind and that when I was Secretary of State a shiver used to go through the Ministry of Defence every time that it was known that Lord Carver was about to speak in the House of Lords. He made a significant contribution to your Lordships' House.
	As an aside to my remarks, our debates on Afghanistan should be required reading for anyone considering reform of your Lordships' House. Having come so recently from another place, I cannot fail continually to be impressed by the quality and authority of the contributions made in these debates, as in so many others. We have among your Lordships so many people with outstanding experience in the field. If I may congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, on his maiden speech—I did not know that we were not allowed to do so—I must say that having been, as I continually told Chiefs of the Defence Staff and others, by an accident of National Service, commissioned earlier than several of those most senior in rank in the Ministry of Defence, I am delighted to see young officers making such progress and joining your Lordships' House.
	As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, recognised, the value of our multi-national training programmes is seen to particular advantage at present. The authority and contribution that he has brought to our relationship with Pakistan at a critical moment may owe something to that background. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, may remember that on one occasion our relationship with Turkey in Operation Provide Comfort was enormously helped by the joint membership of the Royal College of Defence Studies of the British and Turkish officers concerned.
	I was also delighted that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, echoed something that I said in my maiden speech about the importance of the BBC World Service. In whichever country we find ourselves, we discover that it has huge listening figures in the area. I was certainly not aware before of what a high listening audience the BBC World Service has in Afghanistan, which can only be helpful.
	Your Lordships have now had the privilege of listening in rapid sequence to the words of authority of three former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, and I am about to be followed by another. They have all, with the authority that they bring to the subject, echoed the words from the recent Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies lecture by the current Chief of the Defence Staff about serious concern about funding and the number of concurrent operations in which our forces now find themselves. In his chilling words,
	"Something will have to give".
	I may be seen as the guilty man behind Options for Change. I listened to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, on the subject of defence review—as we never dreamt of calling it—but that was a specific and direct response to the ending of the Cold War. It was led by the then Vice-Chief of Defence Staff, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Vincent of Coleshill, assisted by the now Permanent Secretary of the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, Sir Richard Mottram. I always believed that that move was from one state to a new state—an end of Cold War state, as it were—but not a moment on a continuous path downwards. I believed that it was essential that we kept reserves, some tolerance and sufficient capacity for what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, precisely described as the next problem and threat to arise.
	There is an awful thing about defence reviews—especially the most recent one, which claimed, if I may make a tiny party political point, that it would be better than any other because it would be foreign policy-led and, presumably, intelligence-guided. We know that our current problem stems from something that intelligence did not identify. Once again, as was the case in the Falklands and with the invasion of Kuwait, intelligence failed to give us the guidance that we needed. Yet again, the Ministry of Defence was told that it must do something and find the resources to take the necessary action. Each case proved unexpected. While I strongly believe in our being, in a phrase that the Prime Minister now echoes, a force for good in the world, the world is a more dangerous and unstable place than it was during the Cold War. If we are to achieve that admirable objective, we cannot do so without the necessary resources to make our contribution.
	If I may, I shall now briefly consider the current situation. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to this debate as an interim debate on the situation in Afghanistan. That must surely be correct. Objective one is to bring Osama bin Laden and Al'Quaeda to justice. We may be pretty close to achieving that; but we do not know just how close. But objective two is to prevent Al'Quaeda posing a continuing terrorist threat.
	Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the Chief of the Defence Staff, said that we ought to focus on the enemy, rather than on the ground taken. When we focus on the enemy, which is Al'Quaeda and its cells around the world, none of your Lordships will be in any doubt that its current capability is well distributed and resourced. It is a dedicated and autonomous terrorist force. When I say that it is well distributed, I mean that in a global sense. If it is true that 70,000 people passed through its training camps before the world awoke to the scale of the threat and took action, where are they now? We know that they were in places which the intelligence and security forces had not sufficiently anticipated. Even with the increased activity of the security agencies, we cannot be confident that we know where they all are. The chilling phrase used by Admiral Sir Michael Boyce was that they are "quite capable" of further atrocities comparable with those carried out on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.
	The rapid success in achieving objective one and the progress towards objective two may have dented the middle and longer-term capability of Al'Qaeda. We hope that that will prevent any further training taking place in Afghanistan. We also hope that the severity of the action being taken against Afghanistan is making other countries and governments think hard about whether they are keen to welcome Al'Qaeda into their territories. The Yemen, Syria and the Sudan are areas where Al'Qaeda might possibly have sought to establish an alternative base.
	I turn to further action that might be taken. I have not yet mentioned Iraq, but there is a distinction between cases where terrorist organisations are perhaps being harboured by a state and cases where our suspicion is that the state itself is the terrorist organisation. We have to give careful consideration to that distinction.
	Your Lordships will have noted a disturbing theme which has emerged. My noble friend Lord Howell thought that it might have been exaggerated by some commentators. It is that there is a divergence of view between the United States and the United Kingdom. That would be extremely worrying. Clearly, while there is evidence that the United States does not want to become engaged in nation building—the chilling phrase used was "Super powers do not do dishes"—the reality is that the coalition must stick together.
	I am told that the British favour not merely the military approach but seek to win hearts and minds, too. They want to seek to establish an enduring relationship. The right reverend Prelate said that justice may have been achieved and retribution may now begin. I, too, believe in the importance of the hearts and minds programme. If we see a long-haul situation, if we see the need to sustain the campaign against terrorism from wherever it may come, it is critical to carry public opinion with us. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of a nasty shiver which went around at the scenes in Mazar-i Sharif when it was thought that some of the methods used fell some way below the traditions of the Geneva Convention and other rules of warfare in which one might expect British forces to be involved.
	I turn to the outcome of British involvement and pay tribute to our Armed Forces and the regiment of which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, has the privilege to be colonel. If the bravery and outstanding service of our forces are seen to be followed by the kind of outrages and terror we have despised in the former Taliban government, that will be extremely damaging to future campaigns against terrorism in other areas. The hearts-and-minds approach, better government, good administration and trying to improve the lot of the people may be seen in some United States quarters as slightly eccentric British post-colonial hang-ups, but I believe that they are critical if we are to sustain an effective campaign against terrorism.
	Although I bow to the greater authority of those noble Lords who have spoken, in particular the former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, I wonder what we are going to do with the force which we are to send out there. Is it to be a British command unit which will organise everyone else and bring in Muslim forces and others which can be better deployed in the country? Is it to provide close protection for the British office in Kabul and members of the administration? Is it to be a major multi-national stabilisation force?
	The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Bramall and Lord Inge, spoke of Afghans not wanting to see an occupation force moving in and the difficulties associated with that. I recall visiting our training force in Namibia and seeing the South West African Territorial Force and SWAPO; former enemies which had been trained together under a British training instructor. As regards Afghanistan, the problem about nation building is whether there is even a nation to build. Is it unrealistic to believe that if one tried to build stability in that troubled land, the formation of a national, embryo army which could benefit from the training we have provided elsewhere, could be one of the contributions we could make to whatever elements of nation building will follow? The initial efforts have proved to be an outstanding success but so much more now needs to be done.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, in order to abide by the Companion, I have already congratulated my noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank on a fine and thoughtful speech. He is a most welcome addition to these Benches.
	Much has already been said today and in previous debates about the situation in Afghanistan. I propose to confine myself to the role which air power has been playing in this campaign and to touch on three particular issues which spring from that experience. As happened in Kosovo 18 months ago, a principal aspect of the strategy in Afghanistan has been to rely heavily on the offensive contribution of air power.
	In Afghanistan, it began with the use of Tomahawk and conventional bombing to establish that first essential of any serious military operation; air superiority. Even at the outset, the Taliban threat to air operations was not that significant. I recall that during the previous debate I reminded your Lordships that the achievement of air superiority was but a step on the road to realising the coalition objectives and not an end in itself.
	At that time, we were anticipating that the next stage would be the insertion of a considerable ground force. British and United States army units had been placed on shortened notice to move. The situation on the ground, and the contribution to it from the Northern Alliance, however, was not clear.
	I was concerned about the problems which our own ground forces might face, though I thought it right not to comment beforehand, particularly as I was not privy to all the intelligence information available. However, our principal objective remained and it was very clear: to eliminate the Al'Qaeda and to get Osama bin Laden. First it was necessary to defeat the Taliban.
	In the event, the decision, which I strongly endorsed, was to continue to rely on the use of air power, assisted by small independently operating teams on the ground. Even the most cursory study of the terrain—and one had to bear in mind the onset of winter—suggested that there were likely to be serious logistic and other problems. Inserting and sustaining ground forces over a period of weeks or months in a very unstable country, particularly if they were involved in offensive operations, was quite a task. The mix of factions on the move within Afghanistan then could further add to the difficulties of telling friend from foe.
	So I was relieved when it became clear that the intention was to continue to rely heavily on air power. That was a very sound decision and reflects the increasing value now being obtained by the use of air power. Ever since the bombing began, and particularly in recent days, the weight of attack on first the Taliban and subsequently on Al'Qaeda has been immense.
	There is a temptation to measure air power's contribution by the number of sorties and the weight of bombs which have been raining down from B-52s, F-18s and other aircraft flown from United States naval carriers or even from the continental USA. These statistics are, of course, very impressive. They are, too, a measure of the collective efforts of very large numbers of individuals and units, working together on planning and operational staffs, on airfields and on ships, as well as in the air, to achieve a massive and sustained level of operations. That reflects the depth of professional training and the most meticulous preparations for operations. It points, too, to the levels of performance of aircraft and weapons which are now required and the need to provide adequate numbers of them.
	Planning and implementing operations on this scale is a major undertaking. All who have participated are to be congratulated on their efforts. Altogether, we have seen a most professional and skilful employment of air power, one which terrorist supporters in other parts of the world should note.
	But it is not right to measure success solely by the number of sorties flown or the weight of ordnance delivered. Achieving the military objectives apart, we need to consider how often the right targets have been struck, how often they have been missed.
	In war, as in training, there will be missed targets and thus some wasted effort. Training is essential if such mistakes are to be minimised. Cutting back on training is a grave mistake. It increases the chance of ghastly errors in war, which could very adversely undermine public support. We make cuts far too often, as a short term economy measure, in the training of our Armed Forces. Bombs that miss sometimes do dreadful damage to non-military targets and kill or maim children and non-combatants. Such horrific incidents understandably get considerable critical media coverage.
	But there is more to it than that. Noble Lords should take it as read that great efforts are taken to avoid such tragedies—not only because of their adverse impact on public support for any campaign but also because bombs which go astray do not destroy the target and further sorties will have to be mounted to deal with it. Bombs will go astray, even the latest smartest guided weapons, and for a variety of reasons. There is a tendency for some critics to argue that even if a single bomb misses, something has gone wrong and that it is a poor show.
	The Royal Air Force was criticised after Kosovo because not every bomb it dropped hit a target. That is uninformed criticism and very wide of the mark. Noble Lords will recall that during the Falklands conflict a Vulcan bomber, operating from Ascension Island, dropped a stick of 21 1,000lb bombs on the airfield at Port Stanley. The direction of attack across the runway was at an angle calculated to give a high probability—there can never be certainty—that one, only one, of the 21 bombs delivered would hole the runway. None of the other 20 bombs would hit the runway, either falling short or overshooting along the line of flight. To achieve the objective it was necessary to drop all bombs in a stick to get the right assurance that one of the 21 would hit and explode on the runway.
	To a greater or lesser extent the same principle applies whatever number of unguided, or dumb, bombs are used. Several are dropped to straddle the target. Much modern ordnance today incorporates some form of guidance to achieve a higher probability of a successful attack and to reduce the number of bombs that would be required to destroy the target if they were unguided ones. The chances of hitting unintended buildings or individuals are, of course, also much reduced.
	But even with smart bombs, not everything will always go right. If one is a good shot and fires at a target at Bisley, not every round will be a centre bull's eye. Even if the aim is rock steady, small variations in the wind or in the charge in the rifle round, for example, will affect the ballistics and reduce consistent accuracy. Flying at several hundred knots, where the altitude, acceleration and attitude of the aircraft at weapon release are all variables, will affect the flight of a round far more than one fired lying still on your stomach. On-board computers should cope with these variables but, like the experience at Bisley, there will be small deviations. The bomb's own guidance system will also have to deal with other variables as it descends towards its target. Of course one does all that one can to get everything working perfectly, but the nature of warfare is that there will be technical as well as human error. Not every bomb that goes astray is due to pilot error.
	Other noble Lords will comment on what we should do next. All I would add is that Her Majesty's Government should be very clear what their exit strategy should be for forces that they may commit on the ground.
	Finally, there is one other point that I should like to highlight. Those whom we rely on to mount and participate in operations of war are a very special breed of individual. They are, of course, volunteers, but are now—far more than was ever the case during the Cold War—exposed to enemy threats. They are sent on operations and their lives can be at risk.
	If they are to achieve what is expected of them, they need to be properly trained and the money for that must be found. They need to be provided with the aircraft, weapons and defensive aids to give them a much better than even chance of defeating their opponents in the air or on the ground. They need a rewarding career structure and consideration for their families and other domestic needs. If they are unlucky and are killed or handicapped by wounds, then they must be adequately taken care of with a pension and benefits that match today's best practice.
	Let me name and shame. Recent figures that I have seen indicate that, for the Armed Forces today, the death-in-service benefit payable to the surviving relative is 1.5 times salary compared to four times salary for an MP. There is a proposal to increase the Armed Forces benefit to three times salary in 2004, but that is still well short of the best. There are other comparisons that also indicate that the present, and even the future, proposed pension and benefit schemes for the services are not up to those of other public service groups.
	Surely if we are to continue to recruit and retain individuals who perform as well as the Armed Forces do today, we must ensure that they are not discouraged by their pension and other benefit prospects. A young man or woman may not have a pension as their top consideration, but it is wrong to disadvantage such people by relying on their lack of interest. We should ensure that when the time comes their service will be properly recognised.
	I urge the Government to think again about revamping a pension and benefit system which has been constrained from the outset by a diktat that any changes must be cost neutral. More money is required if the services are not to be shabbily treated. I hope that the Government will show that their admiration for the Armed Forces, often so eloquently expressed, will be matched by deeds in their review of service pensions and benefit schemes—a review which will impact on every soldier, sailor or airman who is on operations supporting Her Majesty's Government's policy in Afghanistan, over Iraq and elsewhere.

Lord Judd: My Lords, I ought to declare an interest because of my involvement in Oxfam and other humanitarian agencies concerned with the issue we are debating tonight.
	Whatever the conventions, I too must say at the outset how good it is to see the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, among us. Those noble Lords who, over the years, have had an opportunity to know him personally not only unreservedly admire his military career, but also appreciate his wisdom and great sense of humanity. These will be tremendous assets in what he contributes in the time ahead.
	I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on having come before us yet again for this debate. It can be nothing but to the good that they are so open about enabling us to scrutinise activity and to put forward our views.
	My noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean reminded us in her opening speech that at the forefront of our minds all the time must be 11th September. That is the essential point to make. Our firm and enduring friendship for the people of the United States demands no less. She also said that we must make sure that such an atrocity will never happen again. In that context I was glad to hear her emphasise the role of the United Nations, not only in what it has done already but in what it may be able to do in the future. I am sure that it would be appropriate at this juncture to pick out the name of Lakhdar Brahimi and to say that he represents all that is best in international service and leadership. He played a remarkable part in enabling the Bonn agreement to be reached and in enabling us to take the first tentative steps on the political way forward.
	Tributes are due to a great number of people for the progress so far, especially our own armed services. At the time of Christmas we think not only of them but also of their families. As I have said before in our debates—because I believe it very deeply—a tribute is also due to our own Prime Minister for the critical leadership role he has played in the saga so far.
	We have now to face the issue of winning the peace. I was interested that, in his remarkable maiden speech, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, emphasised the long haul. This will have economic and social dimensions. It will not be cheap; it will be very expensive. My noble friend Lady Ramsay of Cartvale also underlined that point. It will involve reconstruction, institution-building and a tremendous educational programme. It will involve the rule of law. We are very apt to preach about the importance of the rule of law, but the rule of law costs money. It costs money to have judges and advocates in place, to run prisons and to look after prisoners and the accused decently.
	In that context it will not be good enough simply to say that the rule of law is essential to the future of Afghanistan. If we want the rule of law, we must be prepared to resource it. It will involve the whole approach to governance and the resources needed for it. It will also involve the regional dimensions. The burden will not be simply upon Afghanistan but is already upon adjacent states. We need to make sure that the necessary support goes to them. I hope—I am not ashamed to say it in view of my past and present involvement in the non-governmental world—that in all of this there will be close co-ordination with the non-governmental organisations.
	There are also the immediate humanitarian needs. My noble friend stressed that there had been a welcome increase in the amount of humanitarian assistance getting through and in place. Winter is upon the people who have already suffered so grievously, however, and the question is whether there is enough in place for the winter. Are the supplies reaching the country getting through to the displaced, not least those on the Iran border? Are the incredible needs of the camps, both inside and outside Afghanistan, being properly addressed? I hope that my noble friend, when replying to this debate, will be able to give us some precise estimates and answers on these points. I know that my noble friend will forgive me for stressing what I have always stressed: I believe that this involves close co-ordination with the non-governmental community.
	My Lords, history will scrutinise this campaign in great detail. We have to be ready for that. If we seek to claim the moral high ground and to present our commitment as the stand of good against evil and as the defence of civilised values, then we shall rightly be judged by those standards.
	The questions that inevitably will be asked of us will probably include whether the bombing has been proportionate, discriminate and justified in terms of the stated objectives. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, with all his experience, has just spoken about the complications this issue. How many civilian casualties have there really been and were they unavoidable? What has been the agreed policy on the taking, treatment and protection of prisoners and on the response to offers of surrender? What did happen at the Qala-i-Jangi fortress? Why did it happen and how thoroughly is it being investigated? What is the agreed policy on assassination as a method of pursuing the coalition's objectives? What arrangements have been agreed by the coalition on the procedures for trials, for forms of punishment to be applied, and on extradition? Specifically in this context, where do the Government stand on the death penalty? Other questions concern whether the overriding objective is to bring bin Laden and his followers to justice or to bring justice to them. Those objectives are not the same. Is there a determination to demonstrate our commitment to and confidence in the processes of the law? If there is not, have we honestly considered the messages to others? Have policy and action on all these matters and others been tested, and will they always be tested, against our existing commitments to the upholding of human rights? What is the policy of continuing explicit rather than implicit authorisation by the UN for action?
	I believe that these questions will have to be taken seriously for two reasons. First, because of the ringing moral terms in which we have spelt out our mission. Secondly, because they are central to the battle for hearts and minds.
	Around two weeks ago I was standing in a camp for displaced people—a dreadful place—in Znamenskoye, Chechnya. I caught sight of a group of young men in the camp. Their faces were a study. They had been through indiscriminate and disproportionate bombardments; they had seen the abuse of human rights; they were now faced with the grim circumstances of the camp. I wondered what was their stake in the future and in what direction they were beginning to see their futures lead.
	We must uphold the finest qualities, as they have evolved, of our own military forces, as well as of those at all levels in our forces who strive to maintain them, as they have done repeatedly in immensely difficult circumstances in Northern Ireland and abroad. I also presume that it is for this very purpose that the international stabilisation force is being considered.
	While we have to be decisive, firm and tough, we have to be certain that, as in domestic emergency measures, we never allow ourselves to be provoked into doing precisely what the coldly calculating terrorist leaders want us to do; namely, to indicate that, under pressure, our civilised values could begin to dissolve and be seen as largely rhetoric.
	There are other issues which have to be addressed and they have been mentioned in this debate. Conceptually, the Middle East is highly relevant in terms of the issues of justice. There will never be a lasting imposed solution in the Middle East unless the issues of justice are properly addressed, and those are very deeply rooted in history. But there are other issues. Why are so many arms so readily available in the world, and what are we doing responsibly to control them? The Export Control Bill, which is to come before the House next month, is highly relevant to the kinds of situations with which we are now confronted.
	During a lifetime working in humanitarian agencies and the rest, I have come to one conclusion. It is that we must not skip over the differences between peacekeeping and peace-making. Both are necessary, but peace-making is an infinitely more complicated and demanding task even than peacekeeping. One has to face the complexities of the task. One has to be ready to talk with those with whom it is not always easy to talk. In Britain, I believe that all that has happened in Northern Ireland under successive governments is an illustration of what is necessary if one is seriously to approach the task of making peace.
	We hear a great deal of talk nowadays about "pax Americana". There is a difference between enforced order and participatory order. There is a difference between order which is imposed top-down and order which is rooted widely in the community. I listened with interest to Bill Clinton's Dimbleby Lecture on television last night. He spoke movingly and tellingly about the need to redistribute wealth and the advantages of our society throughout the world. However, he did not address one critical question in his interesting lecture. There are quite a number of people in key positions in the United States and around the world who do not always address this question. It is about sharing power. We lament the alienation in the world, but unless we come to terms with the political issue of the sharing of power, we shall not build enduring stability. We may impose order for a while, but the eventual cost may be higher than ever. We have to win that order by the conviction of the broadest cross-section of people in society. That means their participation.
	I hate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell. I frequently find myself very much in agreement with him, and I have a high regard for a great deal of the work that he has done in this House and in the other place. However, I believe that some of the wisdom and experience in the European setting is relevant; we ought to encourage it—not in any challenging sense, not in any sense of animosity, but as a way of contributing to what will be the enduring and lasting solution to the situation.
	We have an enduring friendship with the American people—I know that I have—based on many experiences. But it must be a mature and honest relationship. I worry that the grandchildren of the present generation of American leaders may say: "But what did you do with our supremacy when you had it? Why did you not throw yourselves into an unprecedented commitment to building viable world institutions instead of trying to run the world yourselves—because you could not do that for ever and it would not last for ever? The task was to build viable global institutions".
	The news on ABM defence, on Kyoto, on exclusiveness in regard to Afghanistan and talk of extending the conflict is not altogether promising. In terms of real friendship, it is now that the Government and the Prime Minister—in the sense of the loyalty to their good friends across the Atlantic, which they have established beyond question—have got to speak honestly about these anxieties; to spell out what they believe is the way to a viable future. I think that they do believe that. If we do not do it now, we may never have another opportunity.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it is my belief and that of the Green Party that this war was not an appropriate reaction to the events of 11th September. It is reinforced by the knowledge that the toll of civilian lives lost on that date is at least matched by the number of civilians killed in Afghanistan. However, that does not stop us being thankful for the success of the operation or feeling proud and having a sense of gratitude towards those who achieved it.
	Nevertheless, we should not think that peace has been achieved. The Afghan war, when it finally ceases, will have spawned an escalation in the on-going war over Palestine which has lasted for so much of our lives; and perhaps we are threatened with another one in Somalia, Iraq or wherever. We should never forget that World War II did not become a "world" war until about three years after the invasion of Poland. It is easier to let slip the dogs of war than it is to kennel them.
	But this debate is about Afghanistan rather than the wider field and there the damage is appalling. Irrigation systems, orchards, agricultural land and forests have been devastated, increasing the misery caused by a four-year drought. All this, and we have still not captured bin Laden, at least, so far as I know. As for what I understood to be an assurance by the Minister that the events of 11th September could not happen again, it is what Nathaniel Gubbins used to call "the good fairy, Wishful Thinking"—as a large number of speakers have pointed out.
	Terrorism will continue. It has not been defeated and will not immediately be defeated. It has been here for a long time and is here, in a way, to stay. It is also fair nonsense—as ex-President Clinton said last night in the Dimbleby Lecture—to say that it is not effective. He spoke about Ireland. Does he really think that the Republic of Ireland would be where it is today if it had not been for a certain amount of terrorism? Kenya—a thriving nation, unlike one or two others in Africa—would not be where it is today were it not for some terrorism. We must face facts. It may be sad, but it is so.
	The immediate future of Afghanistan, as noble Lords have said—and it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in such debates—is one of dealing with short-term refugees and with immense hunger. It is to be hoped that we shall be able, through the non-governmental agencies, to come to the help of the people there and in the surrounding countries. As the noble Lord said, it will not come cheaply but we must not run away from it.
	The needs are not merely short term. It is necessary to build a healthy, long-term democracy, and that will not come easily to Afghanistan. The country also needs a healthy agrarian system, which may take 20, 30 or 40 years to build up again. What plans do the Government have for rebuilding the agrarian system, and for re-afforestation, given the immense number of trees that have been destroyed in the bombing, quite apart from those that have died as a result of the drought? These are the areas which are of basic importance to Afghanistan.
	There are other areas almost as important, although they may not seem so. Ben MacIntyre wrote recently in The Times about the need to restore the cultural heritage and, in so doing, to make sure that UNESCO, which at its best is a very fine body, can have an important part to play.
	I deplore the war, but I can see that, if we really try, we can bring something to Afghanistan that it has not had for a very long time. The first reading in the communion service yesterday morning for the large number of Christians in different churches in this country was from Isaiah about making the desert blossom as a rose. That is the challenge before us. It is enormous, but it is one that we must take extremely seriously—as seriously as going to war.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I am sorry to have to disagree with my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, but he appreciates insufficiently the evil that the government of the Taliban and the Al'Qaeda movement, which is protected by the Taliban, have brought to the rest of the world. The operation was fully justified. Had we not taken such firm action after 11th September to frustrate the activities of Osama bin Laden, he and his allies may by now have committed further atrocities. Their objective was not simply to destroy the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon; they were intent on destroying the United States and to spread their perverted mutation of Islam around the world by force, contrary to the holy Koran, which says that there must be no compulsion in religion.
	If I may say so to my former noble friend, there can be few people naive enough to believe that if the terrorists had been left to themselves, it would have been a long time before they perpetrated further shocking mass murders—and not only in the United States. I am sure that they never intended those crimes to be a one-off. As the noble Lord, Lord King, said, they were capable of mounting further operations. We have seen from the papers that have been discovered in great profusion in the bases captured by opposition forces during military operations that they were preparing and planning such attacks, including one in the City of London using a massive bomb.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the noble Lord must not attribute to me a naivety that I do not have. I did not suggest that if we had not gone to war there would have been no more atrocities. I know what the terrorists wanted, but I do not think that by going to war we have put an end to terrorist attacks. There will be others. Going to war was an inappropriate way of dealing with terrorists. There are other, more appropriate ways about which I have spoken in previous debates. The noble Lord must not attribute to me a naivety that I do not have.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, no one is suggesting that the operations that are approaching completion were the only method of combating terrorism. I have not heard that in this debate and I do not think that anyone believes that by eliminating Al'Qaeda and the Taliban we shall have solved the problems of terrorism.
	Will the Minister say what steps are being taken to collect and analyse the evidence that has been reported by journalists about the further atrocities that Al'Qaeda proposed to commit? Journalists have had no difficulty finding the papers, but there has been no attempt systematically to collect from ruined buildings the papers and forensic evidence that apparently blow around the floor waiting for somebody to pick them up. Can individual terrorists be brought to justice? There is a strong case for a process that will examine the nature and intentions of the movement so that its offshoots and allies outside Afghanistan can better be countered and stopped.
	It is also necessary to convince people in the Muslim world that there was sufficient justification for our actions. The tape showing that Mr bin Laden was fully associated with crime involving the twin towers has been published. That is an important and useful example of what should be done, but I am afraid that in spite of the Prime Minister and some of your Lordships saying that it is a matter beyond reasonable doubt, reactions from the Muslim world show that they are not absolutely convinced. Provenance is important and it has not yet been established how the tape came into the hands of the Americans. It would have to be proved that it came from an authentic source if it were produced in a court of law.
	Will the Minister say what instructions have been given to our own forces about the collection of documents and tapes? What rules of evidence will apply if the information is ever used in a prosecution?
	Public opinion about intervention in Afghanistan will be influenced in the long run not only by the success of the operation in closing down a particular source of international terrorism, but by the success of the Bonn agreement. If that works and a peaceful democratic Islamic state emerges from the rubble, not only will the Afghan people be rescued from the nightmare of the 22 years of repression and conflict that they have endured since the Soviet invasion of 1979, but it will provide important lessons for dealing with other failed states that may also be the laboratories of terrorism.
	The big question from Bonn is the extent to which it will be accepted by the warlords, tribal leaders and ulema in Afghanistan. We shall be in a better position to assess the prospects, having opened our embassy in Kabul earlier than anyone else, as the Minister said in her opening remarks. But that does not make it easy for us to evaluate what people are thinking in Herat, Kandahar or Jalalabad. The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, mentioned that there is some dissatisfaction with what was agreed in Bonn. She said that General Dostum was dissatisfied with his share of power under the agreement. Haji Abdul Qadir, who controls Nangarhar province, walked out of the Bonn meeting because he thought that the Pashtuns were under-represented, although I understand that they formed more than half of the participants in the meeting while constituting less than half of the population. The noble Baroness also mentioned Pir Gailani, the leader of the so-called Peshawar group, whose importance in the future may not be as great as those who control territory in Afghanistan. Perhaps the opposition of some of the people to the Bonn agreement is less important, but if they hold territory and maintain military forces, we have to find a way of getting them on side and approving what is being done in the name of the Afghan people.
	It is impossible to satisfy everybody, of course, but the process is designed to keep the dissenters on board by focusing their attention on the next stage of that process. The 21-member special independent commission has to be established by 22nd January. It has the crucial function of making the rules for the indirect election or selection of delegates to the emergency Loya Jirga, which in turn will elect the head of state for the transitional authority.
	The composition of the commission is much more important in the long run than that of the transitional authority, which takes office in less than a week. It appears that anyone claiming to be a civil society group can submit a list of candidates to the Loya Jirga, although an unspecified number of them must have expertise in constitutional or customary law. The agreement is silent on the vital question of how the selection will be made from the lists submitted, which could prove contentious. Will the interim administration, which is the repository of Afghan sovereignty, give final approval to the membership of the commission?
	On the matter of the international security force, the Bonn agreement asks the Security Council to consider the early deployment of a UN-mandated force, initially to help to maintain security in Kabul and surrounding areas. One would have expected that force to be in position by 22nd December, but the Prime Minister said nothing definite this afternoon about its size and composition or about when it would be in place. Can the Minister say anything more about the timetable and about what happened to the idea that Islamic states should take part in the multi-national force? As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, asked, is there a strategy for deploying forces to other centres of population after Kabul? What proposals are we making for escorting aid convoys along the lawless highways in between times?
	The priority for the next three months is obviously the humanitarian aid programme, which I understand is going well, from all that I read about the World Food Programme's efforts on the borders of Iran and the opening up of new routes to bring humanitarian supplies in from the central Asian republics. We can look forward to adequate supplies reaching the country to prevent starvation or an increase in disease over the winter.
	At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, the programme for reconstruction has to start now. One way of persuading local leaders to disarm the militias could be to offer specific projects in their areas in return for handing in weapons. Some of the fighters might be employed in unskilled jobs associated with the reconstruction, or the agencies could undertake training in the various building skills that will be required for some years to come.
	The chairman of the Anglo-Afghan circle in the UK, Mr Nasis Saberi, wrote to the Secretary of State for International Development suggesting that many thousands of Afghan professionals in the outside world would be eager to make their contribution and it would make a lot of sense if the UN and NGOs recruited from among those exiles, who would speak the local languages, when looking for engineers or other professionals.
	It has been said that, in carrying out our task of bringing terrorists to justice, it is vital that we observe international law and use our influence with allies to do the same. The noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Judd, mentioned that. That does not appear to have happened in the Qala-i-Jhangi fort, where several hundred prisoners died, some with their hands tied behind their backs. Since the circumstances are disputed and members of our Armed Forces were involved indirectly in the tragedy, we ought to clear the air with an independent investigation into the deaths, as Amnesty International has demanded. As it is, we cannot be certain whether the all-out attack with heavy weapons and aircraft on the prisoners was a proportionate response to a situation in which a few of them got hold of some Kalashnikovs and started to attack the guards. We ought at the very least to ensure the protection of the 50 or so survivors, some of whom were badly burned and in need of medical attention. They must be at risk as witnesses to events that the Northern Alliance, the US and the UK appear to want to sweep under the carpet.
	The treatment of prisoners generally has been pretty appalling in the conflict. Even when the television cameras are present, guards treat captives with great brutality. The practice of keeping them in old containers with no light or ventilation is barbaric. There may be a shortage of places where prisoners can be held securely and humanely, but why did we not anticipate that need and treat it as a priority?
	If the future is to be better than the past in Afghanistan, institutionalised impunity must be brought to an end and human rights upheld from the word go. The interim administration is to establish an independent human rights commission, which will have the responsibility, inter alia, of monitoring human rights. It may wish to inquire into what happened in Qala-i-Jhangi, even if that turns out to be inconvenient for Mr Straw and Mr Hoon. If in the meanwhile the evidence has been destroyed and witnesses have gone missing, the objectives that we all share of making the new Afghanistan a state based firmly on the rule of law will be undermined.

The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, so much of great value has already been said, not least by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, and latterly by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I shall try not to repeat what has already been said.
	We have reached a situation in which we need to take note of regional issues on the one hand and the rebuilding of Afghanistan on the other. The latter must depend on recovering the ever-elusive sense of Afghan identity, over and above mere tribal loyalty. The glory days of Afghanistan have always been those when charismatic leadership and external threat have combined to unite the Afghan people. The great Afghan nationalist and poet, Khushhal Khan Khattak, was able, through his oratory alone, to bring the different tribes together in the face of the threat from the Mogul empire.
	Today also, the tribes, particularly the Pashtun tribes, must see that the interests of their own tribe are bound up with a strong, safe and united Afghanistan. There is a nation to be built.
	As another Afghan poet, Mehrab Gul, cried out:
	"Rome and Syria and India have changed;
	You too wake up O sleeping mountain warrior,
	Wake up to your Afghan identity,
	Wake up and seize your destiny!".
	I apologise for the translation, but I thought that it would be better than the Pashtun in this House.
	In the meantime, the day-to-day work of securing the country must go on, so that food can reach the hungry, fuel the cold and medical assistance the ill and injured. For the foreseeable future, it seems that an effective international force will be necessary to guarantee the delivery of some of those services.
	Just as the new government in Afghanistan should be broadly based, drawing on different ethnic, language and religious groups in the country, so also an international force must not be merely a European or American one. I cannot say that too strongly. In particular, it must include elements drawn from predominantly Islamic countries, such as Jordan, Malaysia, Bangladesh or Turkey. If that does not happen, there is a risk of alienating opinion in Afghanistan in a very delicate situation. The right size of force is important, but so is its make-up.
	In due course, plans need to be made to encourage the return of millions of refugees from neighbouring countries and from further afield. If such movement is to be voluntary, it will happen only if the conditions are right for the refugees to return. That will mean extensive de-mining of the countryside and the disposal of numerous unexploded bombs. It will also mean the gradual rebuilding of Afghanistan's shattered infrastructure. If agriculture, for instance, is to be viable again, the irrigation system has to be made operational—and sooner than in the 10 or 20 years mentioned by another noble Lord.
	It is important that prisoners of war are treated in accordance with international law. Britain is a signatory not only to the Geneva Convention, but to those protocols that govern conduct in the context of action against groups that are not representing nation states. The United States is not a signatory. Those who have been accused of crimes against the international community should be tried in duly constituted courts. Those who are accused of crimes within Afghanistan should be held in secure conditions until a broadly based administration is in place and a reasonably impartial judicial system is working. I fully endorse the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in that respect.
	Taliban conscripts, sometimes no more than teenagers, who have often been pressganged into military service, should, after appropriate debriefing, be allowed home. Foreign prisoners not accused of specific crimes should be handed over to their country of origin. As has been said by the noble Lords, Lord King, Lord Judd and Lord Avebury, our values and methods should be different from those of the terrorist.
	We must not forget security in neighbouring countries—especially Pakistan. Is that country receiving assistance for the deployment of thousands of troops and much hardware along its northern and western borders? That event is of deeper significance than just preventing Al'Qaeda leaders escaping from Afghanistan. For the first time in recent history, it may be possible to make those lawless borders more secure.
	It is encouraging that internal security in Pakistan continues to improve and that the Government seem determined to regulate the activities of the Madrassas—the religious schools that produced the Taliban and other extremist movements. Are the Government offering any support to the revision of the curriculum at those schools and the introduction of modern teaching methods? A broadly-based Madrassa system will not only improve education in Pakistan but may produce more enlightened ulema or religious leaders—a task of the first importance.
	As to international terrorism, restricting the flow of financial resources available to extremist organisations must continue—but that extends not only to drug dealing and money laundering but official and semi-official channels. Can the Government report on their dialogue with other countries about the measures being taken to prevent the use of such channels?
	The Government of Pakistan are to be congratulated on the steps that it has taken to protect non-Muslim and Christian minorities during the conflict. The structural and legal causes of discrimination remain. A law that is ultimately un-Islamic—the blasphemy law—should be repealed and meantime made incapable of abuse. The development of democratic institutions must be on the basis of universal adult franchise. The system of separate electorates is not commensurate with the return to full democracy that we expect. In the legal system, non-Muslims need to be accorded full equality.
	The Indian Prime Minister said that the recent attack on the Parliament in New Delhi must be condemned as an attack on democracy itself. We do not know who or what was behind that attack but a large regional issue still looms in the background—Kashmir. Until that problem is resolved, the region will continue to be unstable. It is time for the international community to be proactive in bringing all the parties to that dispute to a common table. We cannot afford to wait for another crisis before steps are taken to defuse that particular time bomb. The international community needs to impress on the Governments of India and Pakistan that the matter has to be settled—not least so that the long-suffering people of Kashmir can live in peace.
	As the imperial power ultimately responsible for creating the background to the Kashmir dispute, Britain has a special responsibility. Let us seize the chance for peace at this time.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we are reaching, one hopes, the military end game in Afghanistan. That many of our objectives have been met is a vindication of the strategy pursued by the international coalition. I share unreservedly the aspiration of my noble friend Lord Howell that we should continue to support the Americans.
	When the fighting stops, with winter getting a grip, the aid agencies must move fast. Humanitarian resources should be devoted to getting a picture of the needs as they really are. Non-governmental organisations have been speculating in the dark. They need good and impartial humanitarian information. I hope that the Afghans have survived better than we imagined but we need to know the details and to respond fast.
	After more than 20 years of conflict, the resistance shown by some Afghans will be dangerously low. The United Nations estimates that 6 million people are in need of food in Afghanistan. Red Cross surveys conducted in Ghor province in the spring of 2001—long before 11th September—revealed a population of 500,000 too impoverished to survive the winter without external assistance. Many children will be prey to all manner of ailments and may not live long.
	Serious drought is affecting remote provinces such as Ghor and Dar-e-Souf, where Afghans have been abandoning their homes for more than a year. Natural springs have dried up, livestock has died and food supplies are reportedly too low to last the winter. That is a real challenge to the aid agencies. Relationships between them and the military—international and Afghan—must be clearly defined and respected. Humanitarian agencies and the military have serious obligations under international humanitarian law to protect civilians and enable the necessary relief supplies to get through.
	An NGO invasion must be avoided. Last week, 20 NGOs per day were trying to register in Pakistan. The arrival of the NGO circus is always a problem in a high-profile, well-funded emergency—when all agencies think that they must be seen to be there. That invasion should be kept to a minimum. There are agencies with many years' experience in Afghanistan. In Britain, they include Oxfam—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, Save the Children, Tear Fund and Christian Aid. Internationally, there is the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations. Those organisations should be given the room for manoeuvre that they need.
	The World Food Programme has food, trucks and staff in Quetta in Pakistan—ready to deliver when the situation improves. Distribution is the greatest problem faced by the humanitarian agencies. My honourable friend Caroline Spelman has just returned from Pakistan and reports that there are enormous difficulties in getting vital food to the most needy in Afghanistan. That is partly because of internal security—hardly surprising, when a war is raging. The country is still volatile and the area around Kandahar is particularly chaotic.
	There are other obstacles for aid agencies to overcome. Serious looting is taking place. Sensitive negotiations are needed with a variety of local commanders and warlords. Rivers that must be crossed are swollen by rain. It will be a race against time to complete distributions before snow blocks access to remote villages.
	Land mines—most of them dropped years ago by the Russians—are a serious problem. Afghanistan is one of the countries worst affected by mines and unexploded ordnance. I am told that clearance is not yet being addressed. I am not sure who will be taking a lead on the issue, the Government or the land mine charities, but if it is the latter, we should be aware that they are seriously under-funded. They desperately need ambulances, for example, to rescue the many victims who continue to be injured by mines. I should be grateful if the Minister will give the House some clarification on the land mine clearance strategy.
	The WFP distributes food through its local partners, but some of them are exploiting the crisis to obtain the highest price. Lorry drivers—partly because of the danger, but mainly because of the crucial role that they play—are also exploiting the situation. With the cost of transportation skyrocketing, food networks are not running smoothly. Parts of the central highlands have not had food for three months. We do not want to be counting the bodies in February when we can do something now. Will the Government press for air-drops of relief supplies in the most remote areas? Clearly, however, the risks of increased mine casualties must be taken into account if there is a possibility that hungry and deprived Afghans will try to pick up relief supplies air-dropped across the country.
	While we consider the situation in Afghanistan we must not forget the impact of the crisis on Pakistan. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, and with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester that Pakistan deserves and must have our continued support. Some of its refugee camps are neglected and refugees urgently need food and shelter.
	The cumulative impact of war, isolation, bad management and drought has brought Afghanistan to new levels of desperation. The Minister pointed out that the international community has previously let Afghanistan down. I was therefore delighted with her reassurance to the House that Afghanistan will not, once again, drop off the humanitarian agenda and that the Government recognise that this is a long-term commitment. I hope, as she said, that good will come out of evil.
	I also hope that, although we are rightly focusing on Afghanistan, other countries suffering disasters—the forgotten emergencies—will remain firmly in the Government's focus.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, it is a privilege to participate in this important debate and I am grateful to the Minister for initiating it. We have heard some very wise and eloquent speeches by noble Lords who have great experience, and I refer particularly to the maiden speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie. My remarks will be brief and concentrate on the situation of women in Afghanistan, especially on the situation of older women, widows of all ages and very young children. We have to remember that they are just as much the victims of war as those who are on active service and are killed or injured. In such situations, those who suffer most are often the very young and the very old.
	I am grateful to HelpAge International, of which I am a board member; to Margaret Owen, an expert on the situation of widows in developing countries who has given me a great deal of information; and to Joan Ruddock MP, who only last week raised the issue of women in Afghanistan in an admirable debate in the other place, and on whose remarks I shall draw briefly. Joan Ruddock does much excellent work as co-ordinator of the UK Women's Link with Afghan Women. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, serves on that organisation's advisory board.
	I should like first to address the issue of widows and older women in Afghanistan. HelpAge International is working in Afghanistan, although it is very difficult to do so, and is ready to go into Ghor, Badakhshan and Konar provinces, areas where little aid has yet reached. My noble friend Lord Judd pointed out that winter is upon us. As we know, even in this country those most affected by the cold are the very old and the very young. Sadly, we can expect mortality rates to remain very high. HelpAge International is also working in the border regions, mainly in Pakistan, to which most of the refugees have fled. NGOs such as HAI do such wonderful work around the world, but very often they receive little recognition. Just as in this country, work with elderly people often does not grab the headlines.
	The long period of war in Afghanistan, since the 1970s, has created many thousands of widows of all ages. It has been estimated that there are 700,000 widows in Afghanistan alone, which is an extraordinary statistic. Every time another soldier from either side is killed, it is likely that he leaves behind a widow, children, and sometimes also elderly parents.
	Although widows have obviously suffered, they also have a crucial role to play in the future. In many cases they are the sole supporters of children and other dependants, and many of them are extremely young. Added to their plight is the fact that, whereas women generally suffer from a lack of basic human rights and the opportunity to participate, the situation worsens markedly for women when they lose their husbands. That reality is not unique to Afghanistan or to the current crisis, but is common in many developing countries around the globe.
	The situation of women in Afghanistan has at last received much coverage and comment. Unfortunately, it has taken a long while for the international community to recognise the problems. I should, however, like to add a note of caution: the total disregard of rights and the cruelty to which women were subjected in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime did not start in 1996. The seeds were sown earlier by other governments in that nation, including those involving previous incarnations of the Northern Alliance. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will use their influence to help ensure that that does not happen again.
	As the Minister pointed out, it is very good news that the new interim 30-member council includes two prominent women, both of whom are doctors: Suhalai Seddiqui as health minister and Sima Samar as women's affairs minister. Dr. Seddiqui is a striking example of the ludicrous situation initiated by the Taliban regime: first, it banned her from working, but then she was allowed to work because her skills were needed. Meanwhile, most other women were being thrown out of their jobs.
	As we now know, the result of banning women from their jobs was that schools closed—the University of Kabul could not operate; health care suffered and mortality rates for women and children have been abysmal. It has been estimated that in Afghanistan one women dies in childbirth every 15 minutes, while one in four children dies before the age of five. I encourage my noble friend Lady Symons to ensure that we do everything possible to ensure that women are represented in Afghanistan, as they were at the Bonn talks. I think that my noble friend gave us that assurance in her earlier comments.
	Any future international reconstruction and development initiative also has to ensure that those bodies involve women, preferably on an equal basis to men. The Minister knows as well as I do that, in a man's world, it is vital to involve women fully and not "tokenistically". In the longer term we should be aiming for equal representation in Afghanistan, although we have not yet achieved that in this country let alone in many other parts of the industrialised world.
	I was encouraged to learn from the UK Women's Link that the Afghan constitution gave equal rights to men and women in 1964, and that as late as 1988, it had seven women MPs. We therefore have some positive precedents on which to build. However, the work to be done is immense. Once the current, immediate military crisis is over—thanks to the amazing achievements of the armed services, not least our own, it looks as though we may be nearly there—I hope that we recognise that we cannot walk away from Afghanistan again. We have a responsibility to the widows, young and old, to the young children and to the older people of Afghanistan as well as to the population as a whole to help them rebuild their nation.

Lord Desai: My Lords, I am the 17th speaker and much has already been said. The quality of this and all our previous debates on Afghanistan has been so high, as the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, said, that perhaps we should publish them separately as a book. That would show how our perceptions have changed since we first debated the matter.
	This is only the 105th day since 11th September. We have debated the matter since early October. However, events have moved rapidly. It is a good thing that the war came to a speedy end. As far as I am concerned, as I said in our previous debate on the subject, I want the destruction of the Taliban even more than that of Al'Qaeda and that has been achieved. The Taliban constituted a terrorist state. The Taliban probably caused more civilian deaths and more harm to its own population than have been caused by any amount of bombing in the past few months. However, I believe that the speedy end of the war has led to certain problems.
	After 11th September we saw a great change in the attitudes of the USA as regards multilateralism, co- operation with allies and being open and co-operative with the United Nations and so on. We thought that this was perhaps a new dawn in American policy. However, I believe that the short war has probably confirmed Americans' previous assumptions that they do not need the rest of the world. They may return not to isolationism but to unilateralism as, after all, although our forces have made significant contributions to the war, the Americans perceive that they have done 98 per cent of the work and that they do not need anyone else, thank you very much. The war has ended dangerously quickly and that may lead to some problems.
	One of the problems concerns the Middle East. I do not wish to discuss that now as it is the subject of the later Unstarred Question. The small window of opportunity to raise the Palestine issue has now been closed as now the Americans do not need the co-operation of the Arab world as they considered they did in the weeks after September 11th. Therefore, although the speedy end of the war is a good thing, it will have other consequences in that regard. However, the speedy end of the war will probably ease the humanitarian problem. As many noble Lords have said, I too hope that the ending of the war will allow us to avoid as many deaths from starvation as possible in the coming winter.
	I am somewhat pessimistic at the prospect of the new Afghan regime. In that I am more on the side of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, who made an excellent maiden speech, and that of the noble Lord, Lord King, rather than that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester. I do not think that Afghanistan is a nation. It was a kingdom and a territory but not a nation. Creating a nation is not automatic. If nationalism takes hold, ethnic rivalries get worse. It is difficult to construct nations, especially in a situation in which there are not only many ethnic groups but also family rivalries among tribes. Afghanistan is not merely feudal; it is a pre-feudal country with a nomadic pastoral economic base with some agriculture and hardly any industry. In that situation it is not easy to think of Afghan loyalty. People's primary loyalty is to their family, then to their tribe and then to their ethnic group.
	We shall have to be cautious in approaching this problem and allow much time for its resolution. I do not believe that Afghanistan will suddenly adopt a modern constitution such as we are used to. It will have to recognise not only adult universal franchise but also give a balanced role to different ethnic groups. I refer to the process which has been tried in Northern Ireland where each ethnic group has some kind of veto so that it is not deprived of its rights by the majority ethnic group. It is important to build a multinational Afghan polity taking into account what is called a "consociational" arrangement in which minority rights are recognised and in which all the decisions are not made by the majority.
	I refer to the reconstruction of the Afghan economy which many people have already mentioned. That will not be a quick and easy task. I am pleased to note that Mark Malloch Brown, the head of UNDP, has been put in charge of that. When reconstructing Afghanistan it is important that the relief agencies should concentrate their efforts as much as possible on the neighbouring economies and make demands on them to enable them to gain some prosperity in helping Afghanistan to recover. Rather than import everything from thousands of miles away and drop it into Afghanistan, let us try to create a common trade region, as it were, around Afghanistan so that the Uzbeks, the Tadjiks, the Pakistanis and the Iranians also gain something from the reconstruction of Afghanistan and do not merely bear the costs of Afghan refugees, as they have done. I hope that some imagination will be brought to bear in planning the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
	Another consequence of the speedy end of the Afghan war is that the India/Pakistan issue remains unresolved. Here again, the window of opportunity we might have had to bring India and Pakistan to the negotiating table has, I am afraid, shut. What is more, as the latest attack on the Indian Parliament and the earlier attack on the Kashmir national assembly show, things are getting much worse rather than better. There is a serious danger that military hostilities may break out. There are many pressures on both governments to adopt a slightly adventurous posture on the matter. I hope that the Foreign Office is doing everything it can to warn the two parties against any such adventure.
	However, it is not up to us to solve the Kashmir problem. It would be counter-productive for the UK or any other government to be seen to be meddling in that matter. It is one of those rather peculiar problems in which neither India nor Pakistan wants to admit third parties. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester that the people of Kashmir are suffering due to the selfishness of India and Pakistan in that respect. The only solution to the Kashmir problem is an autonomous Kashmir, but I do not know when that will occur. However, we can make progress in that matter not through the Government but through the multi-racial, multi-cultural civil society here. The many communities in this country should start a dialogue on Kashmir. I refer to people whose origins lie in India, Pakistan or Kashmir as well as to the majority community here. We should all get together and thrash out possible solutions to the Kashmir problem in a non-official capacity. That would have much more resonance than anything that the Foreign Office could do.
	Finally, I turn to the longer-term problems that we have to address. We have not talked about them much today. How will the dialogue with Islam and modernity be addressed? It is not a question of reading the Koran. Far too many people have bought the Koran and read it. Reading the Koran does not help this situation, just as reading the New Testament would not have helped to solve the Northern Ireland problem. The problem is not about that kind of religious knowledge. We have to know about the fragments and divisions through history within the Muslim society. People have taken attitudes about modernity and western civilisation. Some have adopted modernity; others resist it. Our task is to appreciate those differences, learn from our friends in the Muslim community and harness their help to convince their brethren that some Muslim communities have gained from modernisation, westernisation and the new developments. Therefore, those developments should not be seen as a threat to Muslim culture or religion because all religions can live happily in the modern world. That is the message we have to send. I hope that the British Council will do its utmost to foster dialogue among countries.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, it is still too early to measure the success of the Afghan campaign because technically we have not yet met all the original objectives. However, I, too, should like to congratulate the Government again on their rapid response after 11th September and their share since then of the success of the US-led operation. I join with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, in praising those diplomats who have worked behind the scenes. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I am not sure whether the coalition is still intact. Perhaps we shall receive some assurance on that. But it is consoling that other European states are subscribing to the peacekeeping force and that whatever difficulties lie ahead key countries like Iran and Pakistan are fully behind the new administration.
	We have heard many deserved tributes—they came not only from noble and gallant Lords—to our Armed Forces. I wish to raise the question of civilians and follow the example of my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig. The Minister gave me last week an Answer to a Written Question suggesting that there had been no assessment of civilian casualties. Frankly, I find that unsatisfactory. His honourable friend Mr Hoon, after regretting injuries to our own Royal Engineers and other military casualties, properly mentioned in last week's debate the suffering of the Afghan people. I am sure that the Minister, too, will today acknowledge and regret the loss of civilian families as an indirect result of bombing. Will the noble Lord agree with me that any inaccurate targeting by highly sophisticated weaponry such as we have today, whenever properly confirmed and recorded, deserves some form of official statement, assuming that our policies are not being dictated by insurance companies?
	In this context, the Minister will be aware of known civilian casualties from some of the 600 cluster bomb units containing about 122,000 bomblets, mainly used up to 3rd December by the US Air Force. Many of those bomblets were BLU-97s, with a failure rate of around 20 per cent in difficult terrain according to expert opinion from Landmine Action and the Diana Princess of Wales Memorial Fund. Although the US Department of Defense has modified the CBU-87 with a wind-corrected CBU-103, there are still tens of thousands of unexploded BLU-97s lying around from this war, sometimes close to villages where children may be playing.
	Leaving aside military capability, given that the UN is currently reviewing the use of inhumane conventional weapons in Geneva, will the Government confirm that the disproportionate impact on non-combatants is now against international law and that users of munitions nowadays also have a post-conflict humanitarian responsibility? Will the Minister also agree that the specialised agencies which have been actively removing landmines in Afghanistan over many years—the noble Lord, Lord Astor, raised this point—and which always have funding difficulties should now be given the fullest support from DfID in coping with not only with mines from previous wars but also additional unexploded ordnance resulting from the war against the Taliban?
	On the role of the peacekeeping force, it is premature to make judgments while the UK is half-way through the planning process. I welcome the common European initiative. However, I have noticed that the aid agencies have an underlying anxiety that a multinational force will retain a separate identity instead of putting its full weight behind the new administration of Mr Hamid Karzai. It is imperative that the Afghan people—remembering that fighting continues in some areas—do not see our forces as a continuing invasion but as an essential and temporary guarantee of national reconstruction as well as of humanitarian work. The training of police and militia in the protection of citizens will become an urgent priority. With Sierra Leone and Kosovo in mind, Britain is undoubtedly playing its part.
	In debate on the Statement today, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House said that he hoped that there would be no permanent garrison. Afghan has a long history of fierce independence. Surely it is out of the question that there should be any permanent garrison.
	With some allies or elements of the Northern Alliance proving less than reliable as time goes on—religious leaders are already preaching against foreign forces—it will become more important to carry out visible short-term assignments such as protecting convoys on key roads so as not to indicate a permanent presence in the country.
	Since 1st December, food distributions have gone up to 2,800 tonnes a day, higher than the rate before the bombing started. Non-governmental organisations are now delivering more than half the total reported by the World Food Programme. I believe that that in itself is a guarantee of safe arrival. However, since 11th September the daily average is still only 1,000 tonnes which means that there is an enormous backlog of food. Inevitably, while there is still political uncertainty and security is patchy it will be impossible to meet all the shortfalls.
	Some remote areas like Ghor are at last receiving supplies. This may relieve pressure on displacement camps like Maslakh near Herat where conditions are very poor and Christian Aid has reported that arrivals have increased tenfold to over 1,000 people a day in one camp. But there remain mountainous parts—for example, Badghis and Faryab in the north-west. Despite the re-opened border crossings in the north, large areas are still either insecure or inaccessible by road.
	Security is the biggest anxiety for the NGOs because there have been some attacks on their vehicles on the main roads. The road from the border to Kabul is still unpredictable. Trucks make it in two days but there is harassment at checkpoints and guns have been fired at drivers who refuse to pay a bribe. In Kabul some areas are still unsafe and aid agencies are subject to looting, thefts and threats even from soldiers who have a duty to protect them. Law and order, which did at least exist under the Taliban, has broken down and the people are often at the mercy of half-trained militia who have their own agenda.
	None of this is surprising in a country recovering from civil war and still suffering from acute poverty and inequality. Foreigners bringing aid tend to be seen by the impoverished as legitimate quarry as much as sources of charity. There is now no overall shortage of food in the capital but much of it is being sold into the market and many other commodities are in short supply.
	There is a lot of concern among NGOs about the future funding of the United Nations Inter-Agency Emergency Humanitarian Assistance programme since the assessment was made in Islamabad at the end of November. I gather that last week only half of the 662 million dollars required for the six months to March 2002 had been pledged. While immediate needs are vital, there are fears that long-term reconstruction may, for example, be held up by the insistence of the Asian Development Bank on guarantees for debt servicing payments.
	Finally, many friends of Afghanistan are now concerned about the long-term future of the country. The Foreign Secretary spoke last week of the need for spiritual regeneration alongside physical rebuilding. That leads me to ask the Minister whether he believes that the views of the Afghan people and experiences of NGOs in Afghanistan over many years have been sufficiently considered in the international plans for rehabilitation.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I hope that DfID will continue its long tradition of having joint consultations with NGOs—I have attended them myself and know that they apply especially to Afghanistan—in order to plan for health, education and social programmes and the strengthening of civil society organisations. That will provide a firm foundation for long-term reconstruction.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, in her opening speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, rightly widened the debate. I shall follow her example.
	Many noble Lords will have visited the United States since September 11th. I was there for four days in October and went to Ground Zero on Saturday 20th. I stood with a multiracial and multilingual crowd of New Yorkers with the stench of terrorism in our nostrils. Water was still being poured on to the fires—the wreckage was still burning six weeks after the attacks. When the smoke has drifted away and the stench has evaporated, September 11th will still be a major factor in the American psyche, possibly for years or even decades to come.
	I was in the United States to meet six different groups of sophisticated American fund managers. I noted their naivety and their surprise and distress at the sudden arrival of terrorism in their midst. However, they made it very clear how determined they are to fight terrorism and how much they appreciated the support of our Prime Minister, who I suspect is probably the most recognisable foreign political figure in the United States today.
	We must all recognise that one cannot fundamentally distinguish between the different faces of terrorism. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said—I hope that I noted this down correctly—that terrorism against civilians is never justified and that the Government are not prepared to condone terrorism on the grounds of fighting for freedom. That is why I was so glad that Her Majesty's Government at once agreed to an amendment to include domestic terrorism within the provisions of the anti-terrorism Bill. That amendment was passed by the Conservatives, without the support of the Liberal Party, in that first vote in this House. It was an essential change—if it had not been accepted on the grounds that it would damage the peace process in Northern Ireland, that would have involved a compromise with terrorism. Sadly, much of the so-called peace process in Northern Ireland has been a compromise with terrorism.
	I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is not still in his place. I was interested in his suggestion that history shows that terrorism has justified its ends. He cited the examples of Ireland and Kenya. I suggest that terrorism very often delays a move forward rather than helps it.
	I follow the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, about some of our domestic critics of the war in Afghanistan. They seem to be unaware of the realities of war. I give two examples. First, there has been much reference to collateral civilian casualties. With the amount of ordnance and air-power that has been used in Afghanistan, the extraordinary thing is how few collateral civilian casualties there seem to have been. The air campaign has in general been marked by astonishing accuracy. Some casualties have resulted from friendly fire.
	Secondly, shock at the nastiness of war is astonishing. My Lords, war is nasty. It is no more and no less nasty when death comes from 30,000 feet than from a bullet or a knife in the stomach. Death is death, murder is murder and terrorism is terrorism. I sympathised with the Foreign Secretary when he expressed serious reservations and surprise at Amnesty's demand for an immediate inquiry into the events that followed the attempted escape of Taliban and Al'Qaeda prisoners after the fall of Mazar-i Sharif. Those prisoners approached their guards and then blew up themselves and their guards. Our soldiers should not be expected to take personal risks with their lives when faced by suicide fighters, any more than a policeman in the United Kingdom should do, when his life is personally threatened with a firearm. To shoot—and to shoot to kill—is the justifiable response.
	I turn to bin Laden and his possible fate. The Government have got themselves into difficulty by indicating that if he fell into the hands of our forces, our constraints on the death penalty would have to apply in relation to any decision to hand him to the Americans. I know how the Americans feel—and are likely to feel for quite a long time. The tremendous good will that they feel towards the British Government, and particularly towards our Prime Minister, would rapidly evaporate if there was any suggestion that the British were standing in the way of the American desire to administer what they feel to be justice to bin Laden. That is a fact, regardless of our opinion one way or the other on the death penalty.
	Some of these questions were raised—quite rightly—by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. They bring me to that crucial reservoir of hatred that nourishes terrorism. I refer to the Middle East, which is the subject of the next debate. The current tragedy is that Prime Minister Sharon has joined Hamas in making a peaceful solution impossible. He seems not to have recognised that the attacks by Hamas on Israel are equally an attack on Arafat and thus the possibility of a peaceful solution. That solution must involve withdrawal from the West Bank settlements and the creation of the state of Palestine, which should be as permanent and sustainable as the state of Israel.
	I turn to the United Nations. The Security Council of the United Nations is the fastest legislature in the world. Its resolutions have the force of international law as soon as they are passed. Security Council resolutions are a source of great power and opportunity to the United Nations, and particularly to Britain, in view of our permanent "veto" membership of the Security Council.
	If ever confirmation were needed of the end of the Cold War, the collaboration of Russia with the anti-terrorist coalition is it. It is perhaps one of the most encouraging glimpses of a silver lining in the dark cloud of 11th September.
	The United Nations started rather well after the end of the Cold War with the expulsion of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. However, since then things have not been so good. I believe that 11th September and the international coalition against terrorism, underwritten by the law enacted by the United Nations Security Council, could provide a fresh start. That applies essentially in the Middle East. The United States must now combine UN legal and moral authority with its own political and financial muscle to impose a peace solution on the Middle East. There is not much time to waste.
	I believe that we have more to do in this country than was done in the terrorism Bill enacted last week. I think in particular of intelligence, referred to by more than one noble Lord. There is a need for much better intelligence, and this depends on a reliable system of identifying and, when necessary, tracing individuals. We should move as soon as possible in this country to a system of unique personal reference numbers, making the fullest use of the biometric methods of identification which are now available. The Americans are moving rapidly in that direction, and I believe that we must follow their lead.
	Finally, terror, whether it is called "international" or "state" terrorism, is the chosen instrument of terrorists. Support for terrorism comes from two main sources: either hatred, quite often justified historically, or the subversion of fine ideals, both religious and political. Those sources have motivated and been used unscrupulously by Osama bin Laden. Let us not forget that the final phase of the French Revolution, which at the time was known as the "Great Terror", did not end until the death of Robespierre, its chief architect.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, it is a daunting experience to take part in a debate of this kind following a former Defence Secretary and four former Chiefs of the Defence Staff, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, who made an excellent and memorable maiden speech.
	I want to use as a point of departure for my own remarks one aspect of the current operations in Afghanistan: the announcement that Britain is apparently to take the lead in the peace-keeping or stabilisation force which is now being planned for that country. Before I continue, I want to ask the Minister whether we were asked to take the lead or whether the Government took the initiative in proposing that we should do so.
	I believe that there is an important point here. It was certainly right that we should play our full part in the operations which followed the outrage of September 11th. It may also be right that we should play a part, if asked to do so, in the peace-keeping or stabilisation force which may be needed immediately after the operations in Afghanistan are successfully concluded, as I am confident they will be. Indeed, as other noble Lords have said, one of the most satisfying aspects of this whole episode has been the speed with which the Taliban and Al'Qaeda have been overcome by the coalition of international forces led by the United States.
	However, whether we should play a leading part or volunteer to take the lead in nation-building, stabilisation or whatever it may be called is another matter. Of course, if we were to do so and it all went horribly wrong, I should rather have our own military commanders in charge of the rescue operation than anyone else's. But there is a very real question of whether our Armed Forces should be involved in this kind of endeavour at all.
	It is perhaps interesting and significant that one of the full-page photographs in the last defence White Paper showed a British soldier gently leading an old lady across a street. Of course British soldiers lead old ladies across streets; that is the kind of people they are. But it is not their primary role. There is a powerful argument that the primary role of our Armed Forces is national security, or the defence of the realm. But that, of course, is no longer a matter of defending "Fortress UK" or even "Fortress Europe"; it is much wider than that.
	Indeed, the basic function of national armed forces has always been and always should be to support the nation's foreign policy. For example, it may be necessary for this country to take part in any counter-terrorist operations that may be required elsewhere in the world when the fighting in Afghanistan is over. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, the destruction of the Al'Qaeda network in one country will not be the end of the affair. It is a network with tentacles and cells all over the world, and it may be necessary to deal with any state which gives it shelter and support. This is no time for anyone to make equivocal and hesitant noises about this matter. We all know the dangers to our preparedness for battle if the trumpet gives an uncertain sound.
	This is not a question of giving the United States a blank cheque or any knee-jerk cliches of that kind; it is a matter of our own security and self-interest. There is no point in embarking upon a great endeavour such as this—the fight against international terrorism—if we are not prepared to see it through to the end, however long it may take and however much it may cost.
	This country is fortunate in having military forces among the finest in the world. They are highly trained, well-led and—against the odds sometimes, it seems—their morale is high. But their training, skills and morale are directed primarily at the business of making war. They are not a gendarmerie, and they are not designed for such tasks as peace-keeping or humanitarian projects, however laudable those may be.
	Already, our forces are committed to the limit of their resources. If they should be sucked into a long-term commitment in Afghanistan, they will simply not be available for real military operations elsewhere. I believe that it is worth reminding ourselves that we have troops in Northern Ireland, Brunei, Cyprus, the Falkland Islands, Germany, Gibraltar and the Indian Ocean, as well as with United Nations forces in Bosnia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. If our Armed Forces are to continue to be committed at their present level and if we are, as is planned, to commit forces to the rapid reaction force or European army—I believe that it is very unlikely that that strange project will ever see the light of day—as well as to some type of stabilisation force in Afghanistan, and if we are to be ready, as we should be, to engage in a long and costly war against international terrorism, our resources will have to be increased.
	None of our NATO allies has anything like the commitments undertaken by our Armed Forces. Yet our defence budget as a percentage of our gross domestic product is smaller than that of the US or France or even of Turkey and Greece. In 1985, in this country we spent more than 5 per cent of our GDP on defence. Today, in a world which poses even greater threats to our international stability and national security, that figure is less than 3 per cent.
	It is all very well to say that the forces committed to nation-building in Afghanistan will not become involved in the internal conflicts that are a part of that country's everyday life, but, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said, we have all heard of "mission creep"—a horrible phrase but one that conveys a clear idea. I ask the Minister in his reply to assure the House that any forces committed to Afghanistan will have clear military aims and some basic and clear rules of engagement. It would not be proper to discuss in this House what those aims and rules should be, but I believe that we are entitled to know that they will be clear and unambiguous.
	Finally, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, said in his first-class maiden speech, all this is only one element of a larger problem about our Armed Forces. We can pay tribute to the quality of our soldiers, sailors and airmen and their leaders, but we must do more than pay lip service. We must give them the resources—financial and otherwise—to enable them to continue to be the very best.
	I understand that the Government are already giving serious thought to yet another reorganisation, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, has warned us. However, if the defence budget does not receive serious thought as well, only a limited amount can be done. I do not mean increases of the order of £100 million. The noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who is not in her place at the moment, knows from her previous ministerial experience that that is pocket-money in terms of the real needs of the forces. As any competent military historian will tell one, military preparedness is not merely a matter of money, but it is mainly a matter of money.
	To some extent, I conclude where I began. The crucial question is: do the Government have aspirations to play a leading role on the world stage? If they do, are they prepared to sustain the military establishment that is essential to support a foreign policy of that kind? Perhaps the Minister will let us have his views on that in his reply.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, but with rather more justification, I find it quite intimidating to take part in this wide-ranging debate. I rise to speak towards the end of the debate when your Lordships' patience is, no doubt, slowly coming to an end.
	I want to concentrate on the position of Afghan women and on the democratic Afghan state that we all hope will one day be established. The education of women and their enjoyment of political rights are not novel ideas in Afghanistan. The first primary school for girls was set up in the 1920s and by the time of the Soviet invasion, 40 per cent of students at Kabul university were women. The 1964 constitution gave men and women equal rights and a few women were elected to Parliament in 1965.
	In 1977 a UN survey showed that 70 per cent of teachers, 15 per cent of legislators, 50 per cent of government workers and 40 per cent of doctors were women. If one compares that situation with the current situation one sees a terrible decline. Women have been deprived of healthcare and they have been prevented from exercising their professions as healthcare workers. They have been denied education. As the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, every year thousands of Afghan women die in childbirth, and confinement in their homes is thought to have led to an increase in the spread of TB.
	Women form a large proportion of the refugees, partly because so many men have been killed in the fighting in the past 20 years, but also partly because of the special difficulties that they have faced in trying to safeguard and to feed their children. Across the world, parliamentarians have campaigned for the full integration of Afghan women into the struggle to rebuild the country's government and institutions, its economy, its services, its society and its culture. In this country, they have been led, with real commitment and distinguished enthusiasm, by Joan Ruddock, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, reminded the House.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, commented that some women saw a danger in asking for too much as that may cause a backlash. But why should women enjoy less active education, work and politics in the future than they had in the past? I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, does not agree with that.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I would not like it to be on record that I indicated that women should not receive such things. In fact, the woman whom I quoted said that she wanted education, work and politics and that they could build on those. She warned about political realities. She was an Afghan woman who knew what she was talking about.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I recognise all the points made by the noble Baroness in her intervention. I do not associate her with the ideas that were expressed in her speech as she was quoting.
	At all events, the recent conference of Afghan women in Brussels called for the establishment of women's rights to vote, to work, to healthcare and to education; the rapid re-opening of schools for boys and girls with a new curriculum—a point made by the right reverend Prelate—and new teacher training; the inclusion of women lawyers in the creation of a new constitution, including principles of non-discrimination; the rebuilding of a healthcare system; the inclusion of women in the Loya Jirgah; and the protection of women from forced marriages and sexual harassment. The women who voiced those claims came not just from the diaspora, but also from Afghanistan and from the refugee camps.
	Last week in Portcullis House, those aims were wholeheartedly endorsed by a meeting of the Women's Link with Afghan women.
	It is important to emphasise that the part played by women in a developing country—or in any country—is not just a matter of "feminism". The World Bank has finally recognised that countries where the gap between men and women in education, employment and property rights is smallest have lower child malnutrition and mortality and, more importantly in this context, more transparent business and government and faster economic growth.
	Elizabeth King who is a co-author of the World Bank's recent report, Engendering Development, said:
	"Societies that discriminate on the basis of gender pay a significant price in greater poverty, slower growth, weaker governance and a lower quality of life".
	Curiously enough, in the Victorian era, many thought that the influence of women upon society was benign, civilising and pacific. That was used as an excuse for preventing women doing anything in that society. However, the World Bank's cross-country studies show that increasing the participation of women in public life reduces corruption and that more equal education of women and men results in healthier families and makes the single largest contribution to declining levels of malnutrition. Economic development and institutional change are needed to improve the status of women. True to its new approach, the World Bank has projects in post-conflict reconstruction that include one to fund Afghan teachers' in-service training in the camps in Pakistan.
	The current activities are quite reassuring, but we still need to be concerned for the future. Women, as has already been said, are already in the provisional government. But what about the forthcoming constitution-making projects carried out in Afghanistan and not in Bonn? Will Afghanistan women lawyers be involved in this process? Are the Government responding to the invitation, which I understand was extended by the German Government, to put forward a candidate to advise the EU mission to Afghanistan on gender issues.
	It is extremely important that not just the United Nations—where Kofi Annan has made some splendid statements and definitions of standpoints in favour of equality and equal rights—but all the organisations that will be working in Afghanistan have the interests of women, and therefore of the new country of Afghanistan, in their minds and hearts.
	One of the most splendid symbols of the fall of the Taliban was that the first TV broadcast was made by a professional woman, a journalist, with her head covered. What a splendid symbol that was of a free Afghanistan. Support for women's aims in Afghanistan is not a question of treading on cultural sensibilities; it is a matter of legitimate demand on the part of women and sensible provision for the future wellbeing of Afghanistan as a whole.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, we have had a long and very interesting debate. I feel quite humble as I have not been to Afghanistan. My knowledge is somewhat limited. However, I bring a small and narrow facet to this fascinating question. I start by referring to the powerful maiden speech of my noble and gallant friend Lord Guthrie. It impressed the House as it did me. I refer in particular to his point about not making a hero out of Osama bin Laden. In order to achieve that the western coalition needs to understand where he is coming from and what are the ultimate objectives of the Al'Qaeda organisation.
	In spite of having lived on the subcontinent for six years, I was never fortunate enough to get up to Kabul—or "Korble" as we used to call it in those days. But during my time in India I learned to appreciate the importance that religion played in the lives of Muslims and non-Muslims alike throughout the area. That was mainly as a result of having witnessed in Calcutta at first hand what happens when misunderstandings—often deliberately generated by politicians—arise between religious faiths. They create mayhem and death. We witnessed that from the comfort of our living rooms through our television sets in these last months.
	Kabul in the 1960s was a relatively peaceful place, unlike today. It was by all accounts a beautiful tree-lined city, with fine, courageous and artistic people as its citizens, who made, among other things, I seem to recall, magnificent carpets. Hopefully, in the aftermath of the present conflict, this idyll will return to Kabul.
	The few television images we have seen recently, brought to us by the magic of hand-held broadband satellite dishes and a journalist's palmtop computer, reveal an entirely different and desolate panorama. However, we have to accept this sombre landscape as part of the harsh realities of war. It is the result of the winning strategy played by the western military coalition against the Taliban forces. Our soldiers fought with fire the fire originally ignited by Osama bin Laden and his henchmen on September 11th. Colonel Gaddafi was quoted as saying soon after the destruction of the World Trade Center that America had the right to retaliate against such an act and that the Taliban and Al'Qaeda were,
	"godless promoters of political Islam",
	in order to pursue their own evil ends.
	How will the war against international terrorism be won? Will it be through total victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan, followed by a massive humanitarian aid and peace-keeping programme, as some noble Lords have suggested? Will it be won by returning the country to a democratic nation, friendly to the western coalition, with all the trimmings of the free world which have been denied to the people of Afghanistan for so long? Will the western way of life, which includes fast food chains, equality of women, free thinking newspapers, discotheques and tele-evangelism, do the trick in the long run of uniting a people who have been brainwashed to resist such things? I do not know, but I sincerely hope so.
	The right honourable Jack Straw in his address on Afghanistan to the International Institute of Strategic Studies on 22nd October touched on these questions but did not, in my view, answer them fully when he said:
	"Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qa'ida pose a clear and present danger to our way of life and we have to defend ourselves against it";
	and that,
	"the current military action in Afghanistan is not in itself the long-term answer to the threat of terrorism. But it is an essential first step".
	I am sure that most noble Lords agree with these statements, as I do. But does the Minister agree that humanity may be faced with an entirely new type of global terrorism, led and masterminded by Osama bin Laden and the top echelons of the Al'Qaeda? Have Osama bin Laden and his henchmen not only highjacked aeroplanes but also one of the world's greatest religions—Islam—to achieve their commercial and political aspirations? Immediately after the atrocities of September 11th he is quoted as saying that:
	"God has blessed a group of vanguard Muslims—the forefront of Islam—to destroy America".
	That statement reveals his true motive, which is completely to distort the Islamic faith for his own ends. It has nothing to do with spiritual Islam, which individual worshippers have used for centuries to advance their personal spirituality.
	But surely this is not the first time that upstart radicals from the Middle East have used this methodology to advance their political and commercial aspirations through deliberate misinterpretation of the Koran. Is it not possible that bin Laden is simply following the path of one or other of the so-called Muslim reformers of the last century such as Jamil ad-Din al-Afghani, Mohammad Abduh, the Egyptian radical, or the Syrian journalist Rashid Rida?
	The author Karen Armstrong, in her definitive work Holy War, described on page 514 Jamal ad-Din al-Afghani, who died in 1897, as one such reformer. Her book is, I think, available in the Library. I suspect that al-Afghani, who liked to be known as "The Afghan", was a possible role model and inspiration for bin Laden's recent crimes against humanity.
	According to Armstrong, al-Afghani, "The Afghan", wanted all Muslims to band together so that they could face up to what he saw was the threat of western domination to their way of life. Only then did he believe they could take their destiny into their own hands. The noble Lord, Lord Desai, touched on this matter. But I think it is different from the modernity approach to a modern Islamic approach using modernity. This is something much more sinister.
	He tried to build a new Islamic civilisation on classic Arab foundations. That was through the introduction of secular politics as part of fundamental religious doctrine. Al-Afghani wanted the new political Islam to be an allegiance rather than a religious faith. Al-Afghani's followers, like bin Laden's, also practised erhan, which taught them through their Muslim instructors the belief in total fearlessness and indifference to death in defence of the Muslim religion. Is that not the same training that made a collection of well-educated and reasonably intelligent people willing to sacrifice their lives on September 11th in the false belief that they were "defending their religion"?
	On 12th September Osama bin Laden announced through his video:
	"The wind of faith is blowing. Every Muslim must defend his religion".
	Al Afghani may not have succeeded in his ambition at the time, but he was followed by his disciple Mohammad Abduh from Egypt, who could have been the inspiration of the Egyptian element of the attack on the World Trade Center a century after his death in 1905. However, history recognises that Abduh succeeded in secularising and updating many Arab schools in his attempt to bring about the vision of pan Arabism. The Syrian journalist, Rashid Rida, then took the concept of pan-Arabism further across the many ethnic groupings of the Arab world, using a more commercial and political approach than his master, Mohammad Abduh, who died in 1935.
	It is interesting that several ethnic groups were used by bin Laden in his attack on 11th September. That may have resulted in a number of different Islamic fundamentalist groups around the world offering support afterwards. I wonder whether the Minister agrees that Osama bin Laden and the Al'Qaeda are quasi-religious terrorists whose intentions are to divide humanity through the misuse of the Muslim faith of ordinary people around the world.
	Was that not confirmed when Osama bin Laden proclaimed on 12th September the chilling words:
	"These events have divided the world into two camps—the camps of the faithful and the camp of infidels"?
	Is it not possible that the well-intentioned and conventional response of the western coalition and the United Nations to the international disruption created by Al'Qaeda may be the equivalent in terms of cinema to applying a "Harry Potter" solution to what is essentially a "Lord of the Rings" problem?
	Was not the Home Secretary therefore not only correct but far-sighted in including the religious hate element, which was recently rejected by this House, in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001? Should not the keepers of spiritual Islam ensure that their faith is safe from corruption through infiltration by agents of Al'Qaeda? Should not we as legislators give those responsible every support to achieve that?
	I believe that September 11th heralded a new world order which will require redefinition of many of our previously long-held values—one of which is the role of institutional religion.
	I conclude with the words of Sri Aurobindo in his works, The Future Evolution of Man and The Hour of God. He predicted that one day humanity might have to confront the forces of evil that it has not faced since the time of the Upanishads. He advises that if such a situation arises, we must have a starting point. He writes that that starting point should be,
	"the spiritual religion of humanity",
	which means the growing realisation that there is a divine reality in which we are all one and that humanity is its highest present vehicle on earth. We might have to take his advice, if it is to survive.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, unlike our previous debates on the subject, this debate has focused on the future. However, I should like to start by saying that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that we should produce a coffee-table tome of past speeches will not really be a winner. I cannot see that being a Christmas best-seller.

Lord Desai: My Lords, not a coffee-table book, a very dull but contentful book.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, obviously, as a professor of economics at the London School of Economics, the noble Lord has spotted a gap in the market that I failed to spot.
	I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, on his maiden speech, especially because he used it to champion the cause of the Pashtun service of the BBC World Service, which has done so much to provide information to those in Afghanistan. Indeed, by making his maiden speech tonight, the noble and gallant Lord ensured that we had the benefit of four former Chiefs of the Defence Staff speaking in the debate.
	The collapse of the Taliban so quickly has been described by many noble Lords, and by many in the media, as surprising. However, the power of the ordnance dropped by the Americans—especially the truly terrifying Daisycutter—achieved the objective of breaking the Taliban. Few forces in the world could have stood up to such battering. However troops on the ground were needed to take control, and it was the Northern Alliance who were there and able to do so. It was a vain expectation that the Northern Alliance would not occupy the capital when the BBC had spearheaded its capture, but leave it for an international force.
	However, the far greater problem of who will run Afghanistan remains. The achievement of the United Nations in Bonn and the formation of an interim government should not be underestimated, but it remains unclear how far their writ will run on the ground in Afghanistan. Boots on the ground will be needed. We on these Benches welcome the British commitment to send troops set out in the Prime Minister's Statement today.
	The shape and membership of a peacekeeping force has yet to be fleshed out. It is essential that that force has a clearly defined mission. Will it be escorting humanitarian convoys? Will it be patrolling? Will it be manning checkpoints? Will it be mandated to intervene if it witnesses gross breaches of human rights? Will it have armoured personnel carriers? It will need robust rules of engagement if it is to be successful. Most importantly, it will need to know why it is there in the first place. I do not expect the Minister to answer those questions; they are rhetorical, especially as an assessment is currently being undertaken by Major-General McColl.
	That assessment will have a political as well a military basis. The peacekeeping force will need to know where it is to operate. The size of the area of its responsibility will determine the numbers. It has been estimated that policing the whole of Afghanistan would require a force of about 100,000 troops. It is unlikely in the present climate that the international community would commit such a number, which suggests that the initial deployment may be much smaller and localised in its remit.
	It has been suggested that a force for Kabul would be a sensible place to start. In fact, Kabul seems to have fewer problems than does most of the rest of the country. Nevertheless, it is obviously sensible to promote stability in the capital, and it would be a good place from which to direct the security of the humanitarian aid operation.
	British forces, and those of other European nations, have plenty of experience of such operations, especially in Bosnia and Kosovo. I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, who said that the Europeans may wilt. If the Americans move on to Iraq, the Europeans would wilt, and we on these Benches would wilt with them. However, it should be noted that members of the European Union have stood shoulder to shoulder with the Americans and provided assistance in the campaign. The Americans understand what assistance they have given.
	Britain cannot go it alone. As other noble Lords have cited the current Chief of the Defence Staff, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, it is fair for me to do so. He has warned of the danger of getting,
	"our hand caught in the mangle",
	of Afghanistan. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, pointed out, British forces are stretched amazingly thinly around the international crisis management scene. They may be good at peacekeeping, but even the best soldiers can be in only one place at one time. The deficiencies in manpower in the services make the problem even worse. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have the best of motives in their strategy for Afghanistan, but they may find that the defence cupboard is bare after the continuing lack of investment in the wellbeing of servicemen and women.
	Many noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Chalfont and Lord King, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, have suggested that a new defence review is needed—perhaps the son of the Strategic Defence Review or the grandson of Options for Change. I do not suggest that we go down that route immediately, but it is perhaps as well to start to consider the outline of such a review.
	Mr Karzai's administration will assume its responsibilities on 22nd December, but it is unclear whether it will be assuming power. The warlords that ruled the roost before the advent of the Taliban in 1996, who were responsible for the levelling of Kabul and 50,000 deaths, are back in charge. Gul Agha in Khandahar, Ismail Khan in Herat, General Dostum in Mazar and Haji Abdul Qadir in Jalalabad. Mr. Karzai will have to treat with those people if he is effectively to exercise his mandate.
	Afghanistan has not had a strong central government for decades. We cannot expect one overnight. However, the test for Mr Karzai will come in whether he is able to create the conditions under which the international community is able to look after the immediate humanitarian needs of his people. That issue has been raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich.
	The immediate problem is getting humanitarian aid in. It is unsurprising that lawlessness has come to Afghanistan and that aid delivery mechanisms are difficult to put in place. The aid agencies estimate that 7 million people—about one-third of Afghanistan's population—are classified in the "very high risk" category. The first job of the Karzai administration must be to create the conditions to ensure the swifter delivery of humanitarian aid to all parts of the country.
	There is good news according to DfID. The friendship bridge from Uzbekistan is now open; food tonnages entering Afghanistan have doubled in the past two weeks as the World Food Programme has scaled up its operation; and United Nations staff are beginning to return to the cities of Afghanistan in order to oversee distribution.
	However, the situation is not clear. The humanitarian situation, particularly in the north, is extremely precarious. The World Food Programme estimates that 2.3 million people in the mountainous areas—that is, areas above 6,000 feet—may soon become stranded and inaccessible to large aid convoys due to the coming of the snow. Indeed, it is only lucky that perhaps due to global warming Afghanistan has had one of the warmest winters on record. When the snows come, air drops may be necessary and questions will be raised about who will fund or carry out those operations.
	In initiating the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, mentioned that this would be a long haul. Estimates for the Bill of reconstruction in Afghanistan have run as high as £25 billion over the next decade. The international community cannot walk away from that bill. Afghanistan has been the breeding ground of terror. It has been shown that instability in Afghanistan can affect every part of the globe. However, one issue has not been discussed openly and it has caused me considerable concern. It is reported that farmers in Afghanistan are already considering next year's crop. They are not considering the planting of food but the planting of poppies. That will have a devastating effect, considering Afghanistan's main contribution to heroin in this country.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, perhaps I may first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for bringing the debate to our attention today and once again thank her for bringing us up to date in her usual informative, clear and concise way.
	Before I go any further, I would like to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, on his outstanding maiden speech today. His speech was highly significant and informative, and it gave the Government and all noble Lords plenty on which to reflect. There is no doubt that his wisdom, experience and knowledge will be most beneficial to your Lordships' Chamber and, as others have already said, we look forward to his future contributions.
	It will come as no surprise to your Lordships when I say that I shall concentrate my remarks on the military aspects of the campaign and touch only briefly on the humanitarian aid aspects because that is really a subject for a separate debate.
	Much progress has been made both diplomatically and militarily since our previous debate just over a month ago. We on these Benches have given our complete support to the Government on the actions taken so far and we shall continue to do so. I must at this point say how grateful I am to the Minister for the excellent and informative briefing he arranged for some of us last week. I would like also to stress how important it is that we, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, are kept up to date with the current situation and future policy which greatly assists us in our support of the Government.
	I will not weary your Lordships with repeating yet again the objectives of this campaign which were clearly set out in an FCO document which is held in the Library. However, it is important that we know what has been and has not been achieved so far and that does bear repeating.
	We have seen the fall of the Taliban regime, but some well-armed isolated Al'Qaeda groups remain which may offer stiff resistance yet. We have destroyed the training camps and have prevented terrorist training from continuing. The al'Qaeda, it would seem, is in total disarray. It is in retreat and unable to work its network within Afghanistan. We have yet to capture or find the bodies of bin Laden and Mullah Omar. Afghanistan is no longer in a position to be able to harbour or sustain international terrorism.
	We have gained the position where the coalition can mount future operations and humanitarian aid can be delivered. Those military achievements are of great significance. And let it not be forgotten that all of them have been achieved in about nine weeks and have been a great contributory factor in making the Bonn meeting take place and its outcome so successful.
	It is clear that rapid progress in Afghanistan has been made and momentum is there to drive future policy forward. Those who were faint hearted and doubted the coalition's resolve and tactics have been proved wrong. Furthermore, a clear signal has been sent to those contemplating terrorist actions or sponsoring them that retribution will be swift in the future.
	It is worth noting some facts which can be drawn from the campaign so far. First, much of the Taliban collapse can be ascribed to the use of air power, the careful selection of targets and the critical importance of intelligence and aerial surveillance. The revolution in precision bombing has had a profound effect on the conduct of these military operations minimising the number of civilian casualties and yet causing significant casualties to the Taliban both in terms of men and equipment. Air power in the North precipitated the first Taliban retreat and set the scene for the Northern Alliance and other anti-Taliban forces to make rapid gains. Virtually all the territory and the major cities are now in the hands of the new regime.
	Secondly, the need for flexible military capability, backed up by the abilities to deploy rapidly and provide sound and timely intelligence. Special forces are playing a key role in the effective deployment of anti-Taliban forces and the destruction of the enemy. Their effectiveness is out of all proportion to their relatively small numbers and they have been and will continue to be a vital asset in these operations.
	In the previous two debates, I drew your Lordships' attention to the essential need for accurate and timely intelligence. I said on both those occasions that without more money it would be impossible to advise the Government of forthcoming threats and the Armed Forces would be unable to make use of intelligence so essential to successful operations. The extra £20 million recently announced to the intelligence services while a step in the right direction is totally inadequate for the future asymmetric threats with which we may have to contend. A minimum of hundreds of millions of pounds is required now and a substantial increase to the annual budget of the intelligence service will be required.
	Intelligence is not the only area which requires more funding, as has been said today by noble and gallant Lords. More money is required for all three services if they are to continue to be successful. Without it, one day the Armed Forces could fail in their mission. It will not be their fault or, I believe, the fault of the Ministry of Defence. The fault will lie solely with the Prime Minister and the Treasury and they will be to blame for any operational failure.
	I want to turn to what the United Kingdom has contributed to the operation so far. We have deployed some 4,500 members of our Armed Forces since 7th October; a Royal Navy task force remains in the area with a submarine presence; and Tomahawk land attack missiles were fired against the Taliban and Al'Qaeda on the nights of 7th and 13th October.
	The task force consists of the aircraft carrier HMS "Illustrious", with a number of helicopters embarked, the assault ship HMS "Fearless", the destroyer HMS "Southampton", the frigate HMS "Cornwall" and seven Royal Fleet Auxiliaries. The Army has provided ground forces from special forces and specialist troops. There are Royal Marines at Bagram airport and lead elements of 40 Commando embarked with the task force for immediate support with the remainder in the United Kingdom at immediate notice.
	Six British troops have been injured, and our sympathy and good wishes go to their families.
	The Royal Air Force has flown a high proportion of the combat support sorties, and provided Tristar and VC-10 refuelling aircraft, giving refuelling support to the United States carrier-borne aircraft. Sophisticated E3D Sentry surveillance and control aircraft are deployed, as well as Nimrod reconnaissance and Hercules aircraft providing an air transport capability within the area of operations. The Royal Air Force successfully flew the interim government delegates to and from the Bonn conference.
	I turn now to the difficult question of further deployment of British troops as part of the International Security Assistance Force. The first question to be asked is why should Britain once again contribute our over-stretched Armed Forces to an international security force, even though we are probably the most capable? Why is it not possible for the French to lead and contribute to this operation? Is it because, in their petty way, they refuse to have troops under the overall command of CENTCOM? Or is it because their Armed Forces are in such disarray, not ready and so ill-prepared? Why is it not possible for the Germans to lead and contribute to this probable force? Why could not the Americans take command of it, thereby relieving our overstretched army of this commitment?
	Could the role of the International Security Assistance Force be carried out by a Muslim force led by Turkey, which has already offered to take on this responsibility and has said that it is ready to dispatch troops to Kabul once military operations allow? But would a Muslim force be acceptable to the Afghans?
	I have grave reservations about the United Kingdom leading and contributing more troops to this force, even though we are the most experienced and most capable in these matters. In any event, there is a series of questions that need to be answered before any commitments are made or agreed, and I should now like to ask the Minister some of those questions.
	Although the United States of America wishes to retain the overall command of this operation through CENTCOM, will it continue to provide air cover, and in what other roles will it be involved? What has been agreed with the Afghan interim government relating to the number of troops to comprise this force, and from what countries are they to come? It is appreciated that France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, Malaysia the USA and Jordan have all volunteered troops.
	Who will provide the heavy airlift for the insertion and extraction of the proposed force? Are the British the best suited to this role given that we are involved in search and destroy missions alongside the Americans? Does the interim government want British participation in the force? What will be the roles for the force? What will be its objectives? If the UK is involved in the International Security Assistance Force, how long will it be before British troops can be withdrawn?
	I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer all of these questions now, but I should be grateful if he would write to me in due course.
	Many noble Lords have spoken with great knowledge and experience about humanitarian aid and I am somewhat hesitant to make any further comments. However, the successful military operations have made it possible for humanitarian aid to start again, and the battle for the hearts and minds of the people of Afghanistan is an essential part of the restructuring of that country.
	Food, clothing, medical aid and equipment, and children's school text books, are all being distributed on a large scale. The Friendship Bridge from Uzbekistan has been opened to traffic, and a train carrying 10,000 tonnes of food has crossed into Afghanistan. The Nijni Pyandj river crossing between Tajikistan and Afghanistan has been opened, and barges with humanitarian aid from Russia are crossing the river on their way to Kabul.
	International staff have been redeployed to Bamiyan in the central highlands. UN staff have returned to Herat and international staff from NGOs are also returning.
	Food tonnages entering Afghanistan have doubled in the past two weeks and there are food trucks in Quetta waiting to deliver food to 200,000 people in Kandahar. Thirty-three thousand tonnes of food have been dispatched to the central highlands for around 1 million people.
	As your Lordships' have heard, our top priorities are to help immediate life saving needs in Afghanistan. The Government have allocated £40 million for humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and a total of £26 million has been given to Pakistan.
	In conclusion, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what has been called the "next chapter" to the Strategic Defence Review, which it seems is designed to rebalance our Armed Forces. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie, wisely warned us not to be so mesmerised by the Afghan operation that we change the structure of the Army. Any re-balancing must not be at the expense of doing away with our war fighting role. If we are able to train for war fighting efficiently, it is no great difficulty to adapt to counter terrorist tasks. To change from counter terrorism to war fighting, and become efficient at it, would take several years.
	The four noble and gallant Lords, all who were Chiefs of the Defence Staff, and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, are steeped in military experience. I very much hope that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence will reflect carefully and take note of what they have said. I agree with the many points that they have made. The Government would be failing in their duty if they do not give them due consideration.
	On these Benches we support strongly the remarks made by my noble friend Lord King, especially in relation to intelligence and the enemy, Al'Qaeda; those of my noble friend Lord Marlesford in relation to the points that he made about air power, the capture of bin Laden and intelligence; and those of my noble friend Lord Astor in relation to the points that he made about humanitarian aid.
	From these Benches I wish to pay tribute to our Armed Forces of the Crown. I am sure that the House will join me in this, especially as a great number of families will be separated this Christmas because of so many operations. Our Armed Forces are highly professional and exceptionally well trained. They are determined to achieve success and to protect our liberty and freedom. They are brave and courageous and they are always prepared to make the supreme sacrifice. We owe them a very great debt. It is our parliamentary duty to look after these men and women who are such an outstanding example of loyalty to their country and dedication to duty.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I apologise for my rather rough voice and the accompanying cough that goes with it.
	I start by adding to the comments of other noble Lords—particularly those of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, and the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater—in marking the sad loss of Lord Carver, who died last week. As we have heard, he was a great soldier and a true free thinker. He was never afraid to challenge accepted thinking. He was always motivated by the highest principles and fortified by the keenest of intellects. He was a great asset to the House and his expertise and insight will be much missed.
	On a much happier note, I welcome the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank. Everyone agrees that he gave an exciting speech, one which was full of wisdom and experience. I for one—and I know that the House is with me on this—look forward to hearing his future contributions. I dare say that defence Ministers generally will enjoy, and look forward to his saying on many occasions in the next year, what he said at the end of his speech about there being a need for more resources to be given to defence. That part of his speech went down very well indeed. Perhaps I may also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I believe that this is his first speech in his new position as defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats in this House.
	This is the sixth debate that we have had in this House on this subject, and much has changed. This is the first debate in which the massed battalions of military expertise have taken part. They are led by the four former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and there is also an ex-Secretary of State for Defence—a very distinguished Member of this House. There is the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who claimed to be slightly frightened by all these eminent people. In fact, he himself has a record as a former Minister and also as a distinguished defence journalist. I shall not leave out the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, who was a distinguished soldier and is held in high regard. There is also a huge amount of other defence expertise in this House. If others were put off or frightened by this battalion, imagine how I feel, having to answer some of the points they made. I am tempted, perhaps misquoting Wellington, whose name has already been raised today, to say, "I do not know what they do to the enemy, sir, but, by God, they frighten me!". I am very glad that they are on our side.
	The situation has changed a great deal in the six weeks since our last debate, and very much for the better. At the beginning of November the Taliban regime and its terrorist allies, Osama bin Laden's Al'Qaeda network, still controlled the bulk of Afghanistan. Now the former has been shattered and the latter is being hunted down by the coalition. However, as my noble friend Lady Symons said, there is still a huge amount to do. We are in the forefront of that work and should be proud to be so. Your Lordships will know that part of that work will be of a military nature, and I shall return later to what that might involve. Before I do so, I briefly remind noble Lords of the reasons for our actions and for the strong contribution we have made to the coalition's achievements so far.
	No one who saw on live television the attacks on 11th September—attacks that killed 4,000 people, 78 of them our countrymen—can doubt that we could do anything but respond in the way we have. That is why, with the greatest respect, I disagree profoundly with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, as to the suggestion that we had some sort of choice here. We did not. This is what we had to do. Otherwise, we would have been letting down not just ourselves but future generations. It was right that we joined the United States in her effort to form a global coalition against terrorism, and it is entirely right that we give the United States all the assistance and support we can to bring the perpetrators to account.
	It cannot be stressed often enough that the United States has acted not in pursuit of revenge but, rather, justice. In another place the Prime Minister, on 4th October and again on 14th November, made the case against Osama bin Laden and the terrorists that he leads. But, as has been said in this debate, they stand condemned by their own words. A number of those words have been quoted from the video that was shown on our televisions last week. The particular phrase used that was as affecting as any other, in my view, was the frightful sentence from Osama bin Laden, "They were overjoyed when the first plane hit the building. So I said to them, 'Be patient'". Those are chilling words indeed. Any noble Lords who harboured any doubt about his guilt should harbour them no longer. He also added, having known five days before the attacks precisely when they would take place, that the hijackers themselves did not know what their crime was to be until shortly before they boarded the aircraft that they then seized. That betrays the callous cynicism of the terrorist. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, that Osama bin Laden himself hijacked Islam in a very profound way.
	No one can doubt that we have achieved major objectives. When Kandahar fell, the last pretensions of the Taliban to govern Afghanistan fell with it. The training camps have been overrun. The Bonn agreement is the opportunity to restore peace in a country that has suffered from war for far too long. We believe that we have greatly damaged the ability of Al'Qaeda to threaten the peace and safety of civilised peoples throughout the world. However, bin Laden remains at large and many members of that organisation are still active and able to plan further barbarities such as 11th September. We are co-ordinating our researches into what the coalition found as Afghanistan was taken, in terms of future projects. I cannot say much about them, but noble Lords should not think that we are being careless about documents and exhibits that are found. The international community cannot afford to relax for a moment.
	I am confident that we shall fulfil the tasks that we set ourselves. We have a broad strategy to rid the world of the threat posed by international terrorism. As the House has heard many times, it covers diplomatic, economic, trade, legal, humanitarian and military strands.
	Senior Ministers have played an important role in building and sustaining the global coalition. We have frozen the assets of the supporters of terror. We have, as no doubt noble Lords recall, taken steps to close loopholes in our legal system that might otherwise be exploited, and we have always been conscious of the plight of the Afghan people. They already laboured under a natural disaster in the shape of a four-year drought, whose effects were made far worse by the rule of the Taliban, with its brutality and savagery, causing so many to flee their homes.
	We were therefore forced, reluctantly, to take military action. Before I deal with that, I shall try to deal with a few questions that have been raised during the course of the debate. I do not for a moment promise to answer all of the questions. That would be impossible. It is more important that I should end my speech at the appropriate time. I will of course write to noble Lords if questions remain unanswered.
	The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked about casualties. I replied to him in writing last week. I hope that he did not take the fact that I did not say in that reply that we regretted any casualties as somehow a sign that we do not. As the Secretary of State said in the other place last week, any civilian casualty is regretted by Her Majesty's Government and by all civilised people. I am afraid, however, that casualties are always the product of conflict and that is something which has not altered. I do not want the noble Earl to be under any illusions about how seriously we take the problem of civilian casualties.
	As far as concerns land mines, military operations are still under way and the scope for de-mining operations is necessarily limited. We are very aware of the problem, however, and noble Lords know that one of our brave soldiers was seriously injured by a mine at Bagram only a week or so ago.
	In taking this military action we had clear aims. They were as follows. First, to destroy the terrorist camps. Secondly, to pressurise the Taliban regime to end its support for Osama bin Laden. Thirdly, to create the right conditions for future operations in Afghanistan. As a coalition, we have effectively achieved them all. The Taliban broke under the coalition's pressure. The coalition and its Afghan supporters now control virtually the whole country. These are real achievements and ones in which we can be justifiably proud of our contribution.
	That contribution has been significant, extensive and varied. It has embraced all three services in forming a valid, sustainable and often essential element of the wider coalition's military campaign. For example, the Royal Navy launched Tomahawk missile strikes at terrorist training camps. As we have heard, HMS "Illustrious" leads a large and versatile naval force in the Indian Ocean. Some of our ships are engaged in policing the waters of the Indian Ocean. Others form a base for operations for 40 Commando, Royal Marines and we still have a submarine presence in the area armed with missiles.
	We have deployed our ground forces deep into Afghanistan. Noble Lords will understand that many of their operations are sensitive. However, I can say that our presence at Bagram, where we have helped secure the airstrip for humanitarian and diplomatic flights, is well known. This helped to make the Bonn negotiations possible by allowing the Royal Air Force to fly the Northern Alliance's delegation to Bonn.
	That is not all. The RAF, together with helicopters aboard the fleet, have provided support to our forces in often dangerous circumstances. But that, too, is not the limit of the contribution made by the RAF. As was referred to in particular by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, it extends to air-to-air refuelling, airborne warning and control, maritime patrols and photographic reconnaissance. All are essential to the operations that have taken place. Our assistance has been welcomed by the United States and acknowledged for the crucial role it has played.
	Our Armed Forces have not achieved this without risk. The most obvious is from hostile forces. But it does not end there. I have mentioned that one of our soldiers was injured by a mine—laid by goodness knows who, and goodness knows when. There has also been the loss of one of the United States' aircraft through mechanical failure. Its crew are safe, but its loss brings home to us dramatically the risks that are always involved in such operations.
	We continue our operation against international terrorism. But we need to secure what we have gained. That is why the Bonn agreement is the key. But it is still a fragile agreement. War has torn Afghanistan apart virtually ever since the former Soviet Union invaded on Christmas Eve in 1979—almost 22 years ago. If the physical impact has been dire—and it has—we can imagine the effect on the morale and psychology of the people.
	If Bonn is to work, then the Afghan people, some of whom consider the interim authority it created to be unrepresentative, must all be convinced that it is a better alternative to civil war. We have heard about the loya jurga that will assemble in six months' time. But if Bonn is to work, the international community must give the process its support. The Afghans who negotiated the Bonn agreement know that too. For that reason, they explicitly consented to, and welcomed, proposals to deploy an international security force to Kabul.
	As the Prime Minister made clear on 11th December, and again in his Statement to the other place which was repeated in this House, in principle we are ready and willing to lead in the deployment of an international security assistance mission (ISAF) to Kabul once the United Nations has given its authorisation. I am sure that a number of your Lordships will have read the comments of Monsieur Michel with some interest at the weekend. But notwithstanding his enthusiasm, perhaps I may quote our European Minister, my right honourable friend Peter Hain, who said:
	"The European Rapid Reaction Force . . . is not even walking yet let alone up and running".
	All I can add is that we have not yet made a final decision. The Prime Minister made that clear. In principle, we are content to lead, but no final decision has been made, although it can be said clearly that the ISAF will not be a European force. Our plans focused on creating a coalition of the willing—some European, some not. Crucially, too, we shall look to the United States to provide the support that only its unique capabilities can do.
	Many noble Lords will know about the successful co-ordination meeting that took place on 14th December of countries which in principle are interested in providing significant deployable and sustainable forces or support for an ISAF. I shall not name those countries. Their names have been in the newspaper. They include our partners in Europe and they also include countries that are not European, and some countries that have large Muslim populations.
	These countries welcomed our offer to lead an ISAF, but also agreed with our own assessment that for such a demanding and challenging task we must make sure that we get things right. None of us can make final decisions until the preparatory work is complete. We need to work through exactly the kind of questions that have been asked during this debate. We need to work through the logistics of deploying and sustaining an international force like this. For deploying such a force to Kabul is, of course, as all noble Lords acknowledge, an immensely complicated task both politically and militarily. There are still many uncertainties which we, our international partners and the Afghans must clarify and resolve before any final decisions can be made.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, while we are working all this out, who will provide protection for the transitional authority on and after 22nd December?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am going on to advise noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to be patient. The week is young—it is Monday—and Saturday is the 22nd. There may be events between now and then; there may not be. But there certainly will not be events unless we are satisfied that the questions asked in this debate have been answered satisfactorily from a British point of view. The last thing that we are going to do is to send our troops somewhere when we do not know the answers to a number of questions.
	A number of difficult and complex issues have to be worked through. They include the mandate and the length of time that any force would be there, and the way in which it would operate in relation to other foreign forces asked for by the Afghans. There are other questions too. We accept that 22nd December is an important date in all this.
	For these reasons, we and our partners agreed to send a small international reconnaissance and liaison team to Kabul over the weekend. Led by Major-General John McColl, the team included representatives from the United States, Canada and Italy. It built upon our already friendly and constructive relations with the interim authority in its discussions about the role, size and relationship with the interim authority of an ISAF.
	General McColl has provided our partners and ourselves with an invaluable insight into the conditions in which an ISAF would operate. We are in the midst of incorporating that advice into our plans now. There is, of course, a great deal of interest in this potential deployment. But once again I counsel patience. We can make no announcement until our plans are finalised. This House will be informed as soon as we are able to do so.
	Why are we thinking of doing this? The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked that question, adding the point: even though we are the most capable. That is certainly one of the factors in our reasons for considering such an operation. We do consider that we are among the most capable. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked about clarity. Unless we have clarity as regards rules of engagement and our role there, we shall not undertake this task.
	Perhaps I may refer briefly to the humanitarian crisis. Of course, it remains severe, but there are some grounds for hope. In November, the World Food Programme delivered some 56,000 metric tonnes of food aid—4,000 metric tonnes more than its target. The Friendship Bridge over the River Oxus has been reopened. Last week the coalition stopped its air drops of emergency aid to the Afghan people because there are now secure air heads to deliver food and other aid instead. Some have criticised those air drops but no one has proposed realistic alternatives. The Taliban was already attacking aid organisations well before 11th September. It is worth saying that it was a magnificent effort by the United States. More than 2.4 million ration packs were dropped.
	The events on 11th September raised the threshold for terrorism. Today's operations, and those that we are considering for the near future are but the first response that we must make. We must look at the structure and shape of our Armed Forces. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, asked questions and made strong comments about the possibility of what was described as a new Strategic Defence Review. There is no intention to have a new SDR. We are right to consider—and there is no need to fear that consideration—whether we ought to make changes, given what happened on 11th September. It would add an extra chapter to the 1998 review, but that should not worry your Lordships. It will not be as wide-ranging as the review of 1998.
	Surely it is legitimate for the Government to ask questions such as what are the threats we face, and what are their causes? What are our vulnerabilities, and how can we manage risk? What is the role of the Armed Forces and the right balance between homeland defence and overseas operations? What are the implications for international organisations and our regional and bilateral relationships? Those are important questions.
	The noble and gallant Lord made some fun of the fact that it had been said that the Treasury would be involved at the start. It is arguable that it is better for the Treasury to be involved at the start than just at the finish. In a sense, one is damned if one does, and damned if one does not. In our judgment it is better to take the Treasury along with us. I notice the smiles on the faces of noble Lords who have been senior Ministers, or even Chiefs of the Defence Staff. It is important to take the Treasury with us because the case is so overwhelming.
	I hope that your Lordships will give a fair ride to this enterprise. We are seeking the views of not only noble Lords but other experts on this important new chapter. Time is almost up. We have had an excellent debate, like all the others before it. There has been an increase in scope this time because of the many expert military contributions. Noble Lords hold many different views and have expressed them clearly, but the view of all noble Lords who have spoken in every debate is the abiding excellence of the British Armed Forces. The huge debt that we owe them, and which we shall continue to owe them has been expressed from all sides of the House. We know that we can depend on our Armed Forces; we must make sure that they can depend on us.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Middle East

The Earl of Sandwich: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they are taking to help achieve peace in the Middle East.
	My Lords, it seems appropriate that we should now focus on a related area of the world to which we owe much and yet whose problems have defeated our statesmen for more than half a century. Every time we discuss the Middle East we are clutching at straws. The situation is now much more serious. We have had not only the events of 11th September but an alarming escalation of violence not only by terrorists and settlers but by those who claim to offer leadership. I am grateful to the many distinguished noble Lords who have agreed to take part, and we all look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Kilclooney.
	The question is intended to encourage the Government to sharpen their policies towards Israel-Palestine, in particular, in the wider context of anti-terrorism. We rightly condemn terrorists, whether they are suicide bombers or anyone else. Those who inspire terror are not always men in masks behind the scenes. They can be helicopter pilots or tank commanders. The Israeli army has acquired a reputation for ruthless efficiency. But it was a little different at the Lutheran orphanage in Beit Jala last August when 50 children and teachers watched a tank draw up. The soldiers shut them all in one room, took over the building and started firing at Palestinians from the church roof, tearing out new floor tiles and flinging them into the street. One said, "If the kids play outside we will shoot them". That happened because someone in the illegal settlement of Gilo had convinced himself that the whole of Jerusalem was under attack.
	There have been many less visible incidents recently in the so-called defence of settlements—a doctrine of security that is highly developed in Israel and is now a convenient echo of international anti-terrorism. I have personal experience of young Israeli soldiers at checkpoints and road blocks which is contrary to the international image. Most are inexperienced, uneducated and trained to cause the maximum harassment, delay and misery.
	I am not denying that those qualities may also apply to Palestinian Authority soldiers. I am not qualified to judge them, as fortunately they did not search me. The weaknesses of the PA are well known from the tragic encounters of the past few weeks. The PA is a sitting target for General Sharon, which Palestinians know all too well. They cannot control Hamas; they are fragmented and lack resources.
	Dr Haider Abdel Shafi, the respected veteran Palestinian leader, told me in September that he was embarrassed to ask his friends to do things that Palestinians could not do. In other words, there is a frank admission that Palestine has had to rely on so much help from abroad—from Jordan, Egypt and the EU—to build institutions such as the police, air strips and ports, only to see them destroyed by Israel. Unless Arab states and Europe take more positive action to help them to return to the negotiating table, they will remain the victims.
	Your Lordships will not expect me to offer a quick fix to the Middle East crisis. In focusing more on Israel, I suggest that our Government have a duty to look beyond today's violence and push the United States more firmly and urgently towards an agreement.
	To those who doubt that the UK can do that, I offer three reasons. First, we have a historic responsibility to Palestinians, partly based on our eastern Christian experience, from the crusades to colonial rule. St George, for example, is much more than a patriotic symbol. He is recognised and revered by Muslim Arabs alongside Christians near his shrine near Bethlehem, which is a reminder of the possibility and the actuality of greater religious tolerance. No one needs reminding that under the Balfour Declaration we have powerful obligations to Palestinians, both Christian and Muslim, as well as to the Jewish community.
	The second reason is our close friendship with the US, which has been much strengthened by the recent tragedies. I do not underestimate the ties that bind the US and Israel. The Jewish contribution to both our societies is inestimable. Israel today includes many different immigrant communities, but US influence remains strongest. When it is in a mood of isolation, such as its mood today, it is to the US that Israel looks for investment, political and logistical support
	Thirdly, we owe it to our own considerable Jewish and Muslim minorities. The latter have been more in the news, but over the years we have built up a close partnership with Israel based on cultural and commercial ties. We welcomed refugees in the East End long before Hitler's persecution and the Holocaust that followed. We have benefited from Jewish scientific knowledge, music and literature. We have a strong Jewish presence in the City and other financial centres and many of our British families belong equally to Israel and travel there regularly. The UK is now Israel's fifth largest export market and its third largest source of imports. With its total trade approaching £3 billion, Israel has been designated by the DTI as a Middle East target market. We know that that market includes the occupied Palestinian territories.
	It follows from all that that we have a close association with Israel and with Palestine. The plight of the Palestinians is well known and I have referred to it in previous debates, but we easily forget that Israel too is a victim as well as an oppressor. Its security is a neglected area of the peace process. The international community, engaged in anti-terrorism, has to provide the necessary guarantees to release Israel from its aggressive self-defence. That is where new thinking is needed in the Foreign Office.
	That may explain why so many of our Jewish families and friends and many Members of this House feel so powerless. In some cases, they feel that it is not their concern. It is a problem for Israelis and Zionists, but not Jews. Seen from Tel Aviv, the Palestinians who live only kilometres away sometimes belong to another world. The large minority in Israel—perhaps 50 per cent or more; who knows?—who genuinely want peace and who in many cases enjoy liberal personal lifestyles, including Labour Members of the Knesset, are impotent against the fragility of their own coalition and the armour of the Sharon Government.
	Another reason for helplessness is now neatly described in the word "terrorism". It is said that there cannot be peace or progress while there is terrorism. We have debated that many times. That explains the need for Israel's self-defence, although hardly the use of tanks and shells against innocent civilians. However, it should not become an excuse for our inaction. Even our Government are mouthing the anti-terrorism jargon that, since the death of Mr Ze'evi, has become the Israeli Cabinet's life support machine. The Government must not regard it as a reason, as seems to be the case at the moment, for giving up on the peace process before Christmas, in the manner of President Bush. I was glad to see that the Foreign Office has a new initiative in Lebanon and has made contacts with Hezbollah independently of the United States.
	Another reason for delay is that we have a thriving trade partnership with Israel, but that can work both ways. Included in the UK's imports are goods produced by Palestinians in the occupied territories, but for how long? Is it not a basic human right for Palestinians to be recognised as the source of those goods?
	The recent EU declaration did not bring us much nearer. Unless we in Europe and the United States can find new reasons to bring the parties together, the conflict will go on and there will never be a settlement.
	Finally, I have given the Government notice of the following questions, which I shall summarise. How can Israel be dissuaded from acts of oppression against Palestinian civilians? Will the Government at least urge the United States to arrange an early meeting of the Mitchell committee? Is the Minister aware of the rapid population increase in the settlements? Will the Government urge the United States and Israel not only to freeze settlements but to accept that there are other means of guaranteeing the country's security? Does the Minister agree that Jerusalem should be a central issue in any peace negotiations? Lastly, can he please explain why the United Kingdom refused to invoke the rules of origin and the human rights clauses in the EU-Israel association agreement at the ministerial meeting in Brussels on 20th November?

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I welcome the fact that we are debating this issue. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for tabling this Unstarred Question. I am one of those who deeply cares what happens to Israel and the Palestinians. I have spoken about the issue before. Everybody who participates in the debate has a duty to ask how best they can help to advance the cause of peace between those peoples.
	It is a two-way process. Each party has to be fully committed to an enduring peace. It is no good just talking about it. It has to be reflected in what we do and say about the issue. One will not do without the other.
	It is no good dreaming, as some do, that Israel did not exist. I have news for those people: they had better get used to it. There may be genuine differences of opinion, but there is none in Israel about the country's right to exist.
	One may ask why Arab children are fed with hate about Israeli Jews. Why are the speeches of so many Arab leaders marred with that commodity? Why is so little said by both sides about Ehud Barak's proposals to end the international stalemate and the intifada? Why is there no possibility today of seriously arguing about peace?
	Surely there was a basis for discussing a shared Jerusalem, a Palestinian state and 95 per cent of the West Bank for the Palestinians. Why was the process terminated so abruptly, not by the Jews, but by the Palestinians? I think that there was a lack of leadership. It was not an intransigent Israel that blew up the twin towers or blasted the Pentagon.
	The present situation calls for more dialogue before the curtain of peace comes down for the last time. It cannot go like this for ever. We have no more time. So little time is left. One hopes and prays that common sense will prevail; that Sharon and Arafat will sit down at a table and talk. At present, there is no such possibility. Why not? The stakes are high for Arafat, the Palestinians that he leads and Israel. I pray that there will be a breakthrough and I pray for peace.

Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, like all noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate.
	I agree with a good deal of what said by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, but he has accepted the myth surrounding what happened at Camp David. If the noble Lord reads Robert Malley, who was President Clinton's assistant at Camp David, in the International Herald Tribune or the New York Review of Books, he will find that there was no great offer. Nothing was on the table. Whatever was suggested was totally unacceptable. Nothing was said about water and what was offered on Jerusalem was unacceptable. Although American newspaper columnists are dutifully spiking Israeli propaganda, it is all untrue.
	That said, Barak went further than any Israeli had done before and the Palestinians did not handle it at all well. Nor did the Americans.
	The Palestinian children are filled with hatred, as the noble Lord said, because they are suffering under a brutal, racist and illegal occupation. The Palestinians are fighting a war of liberation against that occupation. In doing so, they have committed some unspeakable atrocities that nobody could dream of defending. Nevertheless, their violence is of a different order from that of the occupying power, whose violence is out of order altogether. The Israelis should not be occupying the places they are. They are still building illegal roads and settlements. As the foremost Israeli commentator has said, they have only one objective—to make a viable Palestinian state impossible.
	If the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, saw the conditions under which Palestinians are living and the dreadful oppression and discrimination that they are suffering, he would not be at all surprised by the hatred. He would only be surprised that there are not more terrorist atrocities than there are. I assure the noble Lord that the conditions are appalling.

Lord Clinton-Davis: Yes.

Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
	The Americans, who purport to be the judges in this matter, are entirely one side. They purport to be sitting on the Bench but they ought to be in the dock. They have been supporting, subsidising and arming that illegal occupation for 20 years. The Americans have never put forward impartial proposals. They are entirely on one side, because of the innate corruption of American politics.
	The Americans treat Mr Sharon as a benevolent, serious statesman, and as a respectable politician who is committed to the peace process. He has never been anything of the sort. He has always been against the peace process. He is a man of blood and crimes. The Americans made the same mistake in 1982. They gave Sharon a free hand then and the green light to invade Lebanon. Many more innocent civilians lost their lives in the bombing of Beirut than were killed on September 11th—quite apart from the massacres at Sabra and Chatila. For the Americans to let Sharon do what he wants is totally inexcusable and disgraceful.
	It is vitally important, as the noble Earl said, that Britain and Europe must differ and show their dissent from America. They are more concerned with justice rather than with appeasing the Israeli lobby in the United States—which is what has been keeping the conflict going for the past 15 to 20 years. The corruption of American politics is at fault. It is vital that the Palestinians should not be the only people who are denied freedom and self-determination, and they should be treated like other people—not only for their good but for that of the coalition.

Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, there are times when big problems become so intractable that it is almost impossible to think of a realistic solution. At this time the Middle East is a case in point. In such circumstances there are few ways to avoid despair. One is hoping against hope. Some of my friends in the region say that the Middle East is always capable of surprises. One approach is to leave the big picture on one side and look for small signs of hope that may become building blocks for a better future.
	I have in mind, for example, signs that members of the different communities can live and work together in peace, and above all that examples are set in Israel that could be harbingers of a tolerant plural society. In that context, I should like to mention the New Israel Fund, which is an organisation that supports initiatives designed to promote,
	"justice, tolerance, and mutual respect between all the groups that make up Israeli society".
	In doing so, I declare an interest in that my wife chairs the UK board of the New Israel Fund.
	Examples of the fund's work are many and often very moving. There is a food co-operative for Jewish and Arab residents of low-income neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem, described by one of its Arab members as "a model for co-existence". There is a Bookmobile for Bedouin children cut off from educational material. There is support for the Personal Status Coalition, which campaigns for laws granting civil rights to members—above all women—of both Jewish and Muslim communities. There is also education of members of all communities about their housing rights. The list of small but important projects is long.
	Fortunately, the New Israel Fund is not alone in promoting such ventures; there are others. For example, the organisation called Physicians for Human Rights has found volunteers to provide medical care for deprived communities on the West Bank. It has also looked after prisoners in detention. Its chairman has said:
	"Peace is impossible as long as cancer patients needing chemotherapy are prevented from entering Israel via Erez Crossing in order to undergo outpatient treatment".
	When one talks about government action in the Middle East, the first objective that comes to mind is a sustainable end to terrorism and armed conflict. The next stage, whenever it is reached, will be for the countries of the region to engage in major projects of common benefit, such as those of the water economy long promoted by Shimon Peres of Israel and Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan. Beyond that, however, it is the hundreds of small initiatives in what may one day be a true civil society that deserve moral and financial support. Again to quote the chairman of Physicians for Human Rights, Dr. Ilan Gal, such work,
	"brings hope: a belief that, despite everything, things could be different".
	I wish to echo his thanks to all those working to make that come true.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak for the first time in your Lordships' House. I should like immediately to express my appreciation to your Lordships for the way in which I have been received and made to feel at home, and to underline my thanks to the staff for they way in which they have assisted me in the past few weeks, since I arrived in this place.
	Unbelievably, this is my 11th maiden speech. My first one was in 1965, in the Northern Ireland House of Commons. In the intervening 35 or so years, I have spoken in all six Northern Ireland institutions, including the Northern Ireland Assembly, where I currently represent a Northern Ireland constituency. I have also made two maiden speeches in Strasbourg, at the European Parliament and at the Assembly of the Council of Europe. I have also made a maiden speech at the Western European Union Assembly, as I have of course done in another place. Indeed, on the latter occasion, I spoke at 8.00 a.m. in Strasbourg, at 2.30 p.m. at Stormont, and I then made my maiden speech in the other place, at 8 p.m. I survived that exercise, but I have not sought to repeat it.
	The Middle East has always fascinated me. I suppose that I first came across the subject when I was a child at Sunday school. At the back of the Bible, we had all those wonderful maps of Syria, Jerusalem, Egypt, Israel, the Jordan and the Sea of Galilee, among others. They introduced me not only to religion but to politics and geography, all of which probably come together especially for me as an Ulsterman.
	My fascination with the subject continued. One day more than 40 years ago, as a university student in applied science and technology, I read that there was a competition about how to solve the problems of the Middle East. I entered the competition—which was chaired by the Duke of Edinburgh and the late King Hussein of Jordan—and to my amazement I was one of the 20 United Kingdom students chosen as winners. Although we spent a wonderful month in Jordan as guests of King Hussein, I am sorry to say that the advice that I gave in my essay was not followed. Consequently, 40 years on, we still have an increasing problem in the Middle East.
	The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not simply a Jewish-Muslim one; after all, 10 per cent of Palestinians are Christian, most of whom are Orthodox although some are Latin and some are Lutheran. I have visited Christian homes which have been shelled by the Israelis—the homes of innocent Christians, thrown out of their houses because they were Palestinians not because they were Christians.
	Some recommendations have to be made in the short time available. One is, of course, that Arafat must stop the terrorism. I am glad that he made such a strong speech at the weekend. What a disappointment that today the Israelis replied by yet again assassinating a Palestinian. Israel must stop the Jewish settlements in the Palestinian territories. Imagine 200 or 300 Orangemen planted in the centre of Dublin. That would be a provocation, but there are 400 or 500 Jews planted in the city of Hebron with 120,000 Arabs. That is a provocation. The settlement provocation must be brought to an end. Israel must stop the shoot to kill policy of people who have not been found guilty in law. Syria must accept United Nations border designations in northern Israel; otherwise, there is an excuse for Hezbollah terrorism to continue.
	Palestinians should drop the demand for 4 million refugees to return to Israel as their return would destabilise Israel. It is an unrealistic proposal. Israel should publicly confirm its support for a Palestinian state, as the United States and the United Kingdom have done recently. The Palestinian Authority should underline its recognition of and support for the integrity and sovereignty of Israel and, of course, Jerusalem will have to be shared as a capital of both states.
	Today there is great economic decline in both Israel and the Palestinian territories. In Jerusalem the restaurants are empty. In Bethlehem tourism is dead. In the Palestinian territories there is 40 per cent unemployment. All of that breeds more extremism on both sides. The United Kingdom must be even-handed and not take the attitude of the United States which supports only Sharon. That in itself offends other Arab nations and could bring about a wider conflict.
	I conclude by saying that the United Kingdom must pursue a policy for the Middle East which brings about dialogue and talks. That must be done through the European Union so that both sides are brought together, but the talks must not—I say this from my experience in Northern Ireland—include active terrorists. No one can be required to settle at the end of a terrorist gun. Dialogue will be painful for both sides, but it is greater to suffer pain than for the innocents—Jews, Christians and Muslims—to continue to be killed.

The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, it is my pleasure and privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and to congratulate him on his excellent, highly appropriate and focused 11th maiden speech. As noble Lords will be aware, the noble Lord has had a distinguished career both in Stormont and in the other place. During that time he has led on trade and industry, foreign and Commonwealth affairs and many other issues. It will not surprise noble Lords to hear that his interests are listed as Irish politics, the European Union, regional policy and agriculture, all of which are clearly major interests of this House. We greatly look forward to further distinguished contributions from the noble Lord in the future.
	To celebrate the 2000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ my diocese of Gloucester organised three diocesan pilgrimages to visit the people and places of the Holy Land in the millennium year. I had the privilege of leading the first of those in May 2000. Our party consisted of over 40 Christian pilgrims who had a rewarding, happy and deeply spiritual experience.
	One of the most powerful memories had nothing to do with the holy sites at all and happened during one of our coach journeys, when our guide, Oliver, picked up the microphone and announced, "Have a look at those two police cars stopped by the side of the road". We did but it hardly seemed worth his mentioning. There were two cars, one behind the other, with the occupants—it was difficult to tell whether they were police or soldiers—chatting, joking and smoking cigarettes as one happy group of friends. "Ah", said Oliver, "one of those groups is Palestinian and the other is Israeli. I have never seen such a sight as that before. It is the most hopeful sign of a lasting peace that I have seen for a long time". The remainder of our pilgrimage was similarly happy and hopeful and we returned feeling positive about the future for a lasting peace.
	It was a bitter blow, therefore, to all those hopes when at the end of September of that year Mr Sharon felt it necessary to visit the highly sensitive Muslim compound of the Haram–al-Sharif on Jerusalem's Temple Mountain, which was the catalyst of what has become known as the Al-Aqsa intifada. Life in the Holy Land became so dangerous and precarious that the third of our diocesan pilgrimages, with 70 pilgrims, which my colleague the Bishop of Tewkesbury was leading had to be cancelled at very short notice. The situation in the year which followed, and up to today, has remained so risky that it has never been possible to rearrange that pilgrimage.
	It is sad, of course, for the diocese of Gloucester, equally sad for many other planned pilgrimages since and sad for the considerable pilgrimage economy, the tour companies and the local tour guides. It is devastating for the indigenous Church in Palestine and for Bishop Riah, who with his clergy and lay Christians struggle, with increasing difficulty and marginalisation, to keep alive the important concepts of Christians in that land, being living stones, and caring as well as they can for the ancient stones of the holy sites.
	I do not have to make decisions in these matters which affect the lives of others. However, I assure those who do that they have the sympathy and prayers of us all. I have a small plaque at the window of my study at home which says simply, "Pray for the peace of Jerusalem"; and I do so every day. Every Sunday of this year when I have been participating in worship in parish churches throughout my diocese, I cannot remember one service in which we did not remember in our prayers the people of the Holy Land—the Israelis and the Palestinians, Christians, Jews and Muslims—and prayed earnestly for peace with justice. Those of us who believe in the power of prayer must continue to do so. We pray that all possible steps will be taken to end the violence, resume serious dialogue now, as many noble Lords have reminded us, and bring about a full implementation of the recommendations of the Mitchell committee.
	A letter published recently in the Independent Review, signed by members of the three faiths principally represented in the Holy Land, ended with these words:
	"We call on responsible members of our 3 faiths to set a lead in demanding that Palestinians and Israelis should respect the God-given sanctity of human life, and at the same time to give public expression to our solidarity with all those in the Holy Land who in the face of mounting hatred and violence continue to strive for mutual understanding and peace".
	I gladly express my solidarity with those sentiments.

Lord Temple-Morris: My Lords, as the first Member of the House from these Benches to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, perhaps I may say how delighted I am to have come to this House with him. I congratulate the noble Lord on a fine maiden speech, of which he has due experience. Nevertheless it was fine because it was balanced. His interests go way beyond the island of Ireland and the onerous responsibilities that he has held there. I have travelled with him and we have shared many of those interests. It is fair to say that we get on famously together—I like to think that he considers me a friend—as long as we do not discuss the island of Ireland.
	I wish to address a somewhat wider issue than simply Arab-Israel. When debating foreign affairs in another place or in this Chamber, one always has this feeling that the speech is better made on Capitol Hill. One always gets dragged back to that factor on these issues.
	While my remarks will include matters concerning the Americans, I wish to address them to Her Majesty's Government and to representations which I hope are being made privately, and increasingly will have to be made, to Washington when the next chapters of these vital events for world peace are unfolding.
	My central point—here I go wider than the Arab-Israeli situation—is that if we are to make any sense of these matters, we must separate Arab-Israeli problems in dealing with terrorism from peace in the Middle East. They are obviously closely connected but there are different perceptions of terrorism in the Middle East. It is important for noble Lords to take that on board.
	I shall deal with the two main heads of perception in the Middle East. First, there is a perception concerning the terrorism of Al'Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. That terrorism might have invoked the Almighty to a certain extent—I should have thought that He is quite horrified—but it is politically motivated terrorism. It is directed as much, if not more so, against existing Middle East regimes as against the United States and the West. That involves not only the obvious Gulf states of Saudi Arabia and others but also the more secular countries that are leaning towards the West or are pro-West such as Egypt. They are all within the target area. Therefore, in the Middle East as a whole such terrorism is seen as terrorism. The war in Afghanistan and any necessary—I stress that word—follow up which may involve Sudan, Somalia or Yemen would be more or less accepted in the Middle East.
	The second head of perception involves terrorism that is directed against Israel. That still involves terrorism and it is still abominable and horrible. However, perceptions of it, particularly in the light of recent events, are different. Hamas and Islamic Jihad have the potential in that region to be seen as freedom fighters. Israel's aggressive reaction time and again—I refer to the tit-for-tat killings and assassinations, the tanks and bulldozers and the use of F16s in domestic situations—makes it more difficult for moderates in the region to be pro-American. Moreover, it blunts the support that the Middle East can give to the wider struggle against Al'Qaeda—such support could be better and stronger than it currently is. It also occurs at a time when at least most countries in the region accept the existence of the state of Israel within its legal boundaries.
	Finally, I make two points about where our influence should go. First, we must try to ensure that the United States does not get carried away. Having spent most of last week in Washington, I can say that there is a serious threat of that. To bomb Iraq without the clearest evidence of a connection with Al'Qaeda would, first, set the whole of the Middle East alight; secondly, it would seriously destabilise friendly regimes; thirdly, it would guarantee that terrorism would continue and increase in a very big way; and, fourthly, it would separate Europe from the United States and, very regrettably—I should very much regret this personally—it would separate the United Kingdom from the United States.
	My wider point is that the United States must be seen to be conducting an inclusive policy in the region that is its own policy, not one that is seen, with some cause—this is the universal perception in the region—to be the policy of Israel.

Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I have visited Israel twice this year in my role as chairman of the board of governors of the University of Haifa. That university, incidentally, has 20 per cent Israeli Arab students, including Muslims, Christians and Druze.
	My first visit was on Friday, 1st June. That evening, a suicide bomb exploded in a discotheque in Tel Aviv which murdered 21 youngsters and injured more than 100. Israel was shocked; indeed, the world was shocked. I clearly remember saying that if Israel could just resist any form of retaliation that could help to re-start the peace process.
	There was no retaliation, and for two weeks everything was quiet between the Palestinians and Israelis. I was told, however, that that is normal after any outrage and that the intifada would commence in about three weeks' time. Sure enough, that is exactly what happened. By then, Palestinians had carried out nearly 20 successful suicide bomb attempts and approaching 100 unsuccessful suicide bomb attempts. Why did this suicide bomb attack differ from nearly 20 earlier attacks? Until that moment there had been Israeli retaliation after each event. Israelis soon realised, however, that non-retaliation did nothing to stop the violence.
	Following that outrage, support for targeted retaliations rapidly increased. Such retaliations were seen as the only means of preventing Hamas, the Islamic Jihad and other organisations supporting and directing suicide bombers and other terrorist activities.
	I visited Israel again on 20th November, staying incidentally in Haifa and Jerusalem. One week later, there were three more successful suicide bomb outrages—two in Jerusalem and one in Haifa, murdering 31 people, many of whom were teenagers.
	With the encouragement of the United States, Israel had sought to persuade Arafat that so many of the terrorists who had been imprisoned by the Palestinians and who were now released should be rearrested. Israel presented Arafat with a list of 100 terrorists. This was subsequently reduced to 20 and, finally, to just 10. Eventually, Arafat rearrested only four.
	The Israelis cannot understand how people equate targeted killing against those who direct and support suicide bombers with the suicide bombers' intention to slaughter the maximum number of innocent civilians and, in particular, to kill children, as happened on 1st June and 26th November. Israelis today are wholly disillusioned with the peace process, especially those who strongly supported it when Ehud Barak was Prime Minister.
	In July 2000 the proposals by Israel at Camp David were far more generous than most Israelis had thought possible. Indeed, the general assumption was that Barak gave 110 per cent of what Israel could afford to give. The Americans were astonished that the proposals were rejected. In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar, about those agreements, perhaps I may add that I know for a fact that a significant number of the key advisers to Yasser Arafat advised him to accept the proposals. It was his single decision not to accept them.
	Before Arafat's rejection, at least 70 per cent of Israel was wholeheartedly in favour of a peace agreement which would include full recognition of a Palestinian state. After the rejection, practically all Israelis believe that Arafat is not prepared to sign any peace agreement. Dennis Ross, the former US Middle East negotiator, recently expressed the view that his experience with Arafat demonstrated clearly that Arafat had extreme difficulties in making decisions. Israel may, indeed, be right that Arafat is unable or unwilling to be a responsive leader so far as concerns the peace process. I believe that Israelis and Palestinians are willing to make peace, but perhaps not both leaders.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I also express thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating this debate this evening. It comes at an appropriately crucial turning point in the tragic history of the peace process—a moment aptly described this afternoon by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth as Kairos: a moment of change.
	The past 14 months have seen an appalling deterioration in the security situation in Israel and the occupied territories—a cycle of terror and counter-terror, fuelled on one side by the deplorable succession of suicide bombings and violence from Palestinian organisations such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad and, on the other, by the illegal and expanding occupation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlements and by Prime Minister Sharon's policy of targeted assassinations and attempts to humiliate and isolate the Palestinian population and, in particular, their elected leader, Yasser Arafat.
	There are some glimmers of hope. The European Union declaration of 10th December calling on Israel to end the extrajudicial killings and on Arafat to end the intifada and the succession of suicide bombings may have contributed to Arafat's welcome statement yesterday ordering the complete and immediate cessation of all military action. It remains to be seen whether his orders will or can be obeyed. I fear that too many such orders and assurances have come to nothing. The degree of humiliation, resentment, deprivation and despair built up in the occupied territories over the years will have made such assurances difficult for him to honour, particularly if, as the maiden speaker said, Israelis continue their attacks even after those assurances by Arafat. Let us remember, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has reminded the House, that the latest intifada was sparked by Sharon's deliberately provocative electoral gimmick of entering Al-Aqsa 14 months ago—14 months that have witnessed more than 200 Israeli and over 800 Palestinian deaths.
	The cycle of terror and counter-terror achieves nothing, and certainly not the security of the Israeli people that Sharon claims is his main objective and which is, indeed, their right. Let us also hope that the attempt to humiliate and to isolate Arafat, if not worse, will now cease. Surely, any alternative Palestinian interlocutor in the present climate of violence and suffering could only be worse. However much credibility Arafat has lost, Israel still needs a dialogue partner, a partner for peace and a partner for security.
	Although nothing can justify the activities of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, it is significant that most of the incidents of violence and suicide bombings by Palestinians have in some way involved Israel's illegal settlements in the occupied territories. Surely it is time not just for a freeze on settlement activity, as Senator Mitchell and the EU have called for, but for Israel to start withdrawing from the existing settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Not only are they an infringement of the Geneva conventions, but their very existence is a constant provocation to the Palestinians whose land they have illegally occupied.
	We should have no illusions that very difficult decisions are now needed from both sides. The time for claims and counter-claims of responsibility is over. European Union declarations are welcome, but we should be under no illusions that only swift, determined and even-handed American intervention can hope to rescue the peace process now. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House something of the talks with Secretary of State Colin Powell that took place in London on 11th December, and that he can also give the House an assurance, in response to the question posed by the noble Earl, that we and our European partners are continuing to press the case in Washington for urgent and effective American intervention at the highest level. It would be tragic if the success of the military operations in Afghanistan were now undermined by a failure to address what I believe should be our highest foreign policy priority: the need to tackle the real and underlying problems facing Israel and the Palestinians.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, on his wise and authoritative maiden speech. As other noble Lords have emphasised, the people in many of the countries of the Middle East, especially Israel, Palestine and the Lebanon, suffer from the effects of conflict. In others they suffer the effects of tyrannical regimes. Perhaps even more painfully for those countries, there is not much hope of early improvement of the situation. However, I believe that there are some small practical measures that the UK Government can take in concert with other countries in Europe that would help the situation.
	Anyone who has visited Israel, as I have on several occasions, must be enormously impressed by the achievements of that country in creating a thriving economy based on desert agriculture, technology and entrepreneurial brilliance and aided by generous US funds and brain-power from all over the world. However, one is depressed by the fact that one sees nothing like that development in the West Bank areas of the Palestine Authority and by the great hostility felt on both sides between Israelis and Arabs. Usually academic and cultural contacts survive in some form even the bleakest enmity between states and communities, as experienced during the Cold War and during many ethnic and religious conflicts around the world, but they need nurturing.
	Recently, we heard in your Lordships' House a report of a British Council visit to Palestine and how it is very difficult to maintain any kind of exchange programme when the Palestinian buildings are being destroyed by the Israeli forces. Indeed, UK educational charities, such as UNIPAL, which I have supported for 25 years, are now unable to operate in Palestine.
	At the same time, the UK and other European governments are finding many excellent scientific and cultural programmes involving Israeli individuals and groups. I heard today to my pleasure that, with my Dutch colleagues, I shall be involved with one over the forthcoming years.
	But all the literature that I have seen excludes any mention of the Palestinian institutions that may also be involved. I believe that the Government can really do something about that. They must make enormous efforts to be even-handed in their approach to these two communities and to ensure that no Israeli cultural visitors can come to the UK while visa and other restrictions are applied to bona fide Palestinian visitors and while academic and cultural institutions in Palestine are being destroyed or prevented from operating by Israeli forces. I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister and how the Government will be addressing the question of even-handedness in concert with their EU colleagues.
	An equally important but wider injustice which British academic colleagues have mentioned is the difficulty raised by the UK in admitting scholars from Middle Eastern countries. That difficulty has been particularly marked for visitors from Iraq who are able, I understand, to visit other European countries much more easily than the UK. Surely, we can keep open communications with all the countries of the Middle East for all political, economic and cultural benefits.
	A much longer-term connection between the interests of the UK and the Middle East relates to something which again I am interested in—oil and climate change. As the current issue of the Economist explains, the present dependence of the world on Middle East oil leads to very skewed economies and excessive powers in the hands of authoritarian regimes. However, the world will slowly turn from the oil economy during this century. Indeed, the Government are working hard to pursue this long-term policy. That is important for the UK because it will help us eventually to meet the problems of the rising sea levels. But in the long term this will also help the Middle East to return to a better balanced society.

Lord Stone of Blackheath: My Lords, in four minutes apportioning blame is a waste of time and the current vile and vicious violence is best addressed through the Mitchell and Tenet reports. I wish only to urge our Government to take an active role, together with other European leaders, to help Israel and Palestine to agree a long-term strategy and then to help see it through. The only workable strategy is a two state solution whereby those who live in Israel and Palestine are given a reasonable dream of a viable secure state for each and each other and can see this actualised in their lifetimes.
	Israel almost fulfilled its dream in less than two generations. It became a state when I was six years old. When I was 16, in 1959, I visited it for the first time. I saw that the people there, with very little resource, had transformed what was an odd-shaped strip of land—two-thirds desert and one-third swamp—into a blossoming agricultural state. A few decades later it had missed out an industrialised phase and has become a highly efficient, high-tech, modern, prosperous country. It has taken half a century.
	So what about across the border? As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, what about their dream? Last month I spent some time in Gaza. I have been in the West Bank and I know it. We see the devastation in these areas in the media but actually Gaza has great beauty and viable resources; a long Mediterranean coast of white beaches and date palms; and natural gas already found in large quantities off its coast. The West Bank is a fertile Jordan valley with its rich soil and the possibility of sweet water available. When it has an open wide transport link across Israel to Gaza and the entrepreneurial and industrious Palestinian people are able to work with, and within all those countries around it, it will have great potential.
	Moderate people who live in Israel and Palestine want a stable two-state solution. They know that the compromises needed are huge and laden with difficult, historical and emotional baggage. But these reasonable people would live with the following: two states along the pre-1967 borders; Jerusalem to remain one city but become two capitals; settlements frozen; a "right of return" for Palestinians, and Jews from Arab lands, resolved through international agreements that preserves the demographic integrity of both states. All of those are difficult but negotiable.
	What both peoples lack now is leadership with a positive, not a negative vision. Each needs leaders who are reasonable enough to do such a deal but at the same time credible enough to both sides to see it through. Unfortunately, Israel's cock-eyed system of democracy never gives sufficient strong, long-term support to its peacemakers. As is often the case when state terror has been used, the Palestinian people have gangsters in their leadership.
	Israel and Palestine are obviously not in the same situation as Afghanistan, but, in Palestine, those who are opposed to terror and corruption are being put down in horrible ways. The international community should protect them and put resources behind their cause. Those in Israel's coalition who have a positive, progressive, peaceful plan also need support and encouragement from outside.
	We should encourage and facilitate dialogue between the moderates on both sides. Israel nearly has its dream; Palestine can have its, too. I know of individuals, businesses and banks waiting in the wings ready to help. They already have plans to build power stations in Gaza and the West Bank and then to buy the power generated. People are ready to set up factories, housing complexes and shopping centres jointly owned and run with Palestinians. I know of infrastructure projects of road and rail, oil pipelines and schools, universities and hospitals waiting to begin.
	Our Government could play a pivotal role. America is not acceptable to the Palestinians, and many Arab states have not even recognised Israel. I should like the Minister to tell me—if not tonight, by letter—exactly how many Middle Eastern and Gulf countries have stated that they agree to Israel's right to exist? They must also be made to stop terror. So it is left to our Government to work together with European states to help both the Israeli and the Palestinian people.
	But Europe must not try to balance America's bias. We should support and back those individuals within the ranks of both leaderships who have the courage and conviction to be generous and reasonable and to work towards a two-state solution. Europe is unique in having countries with different histories and, therefore, varying shades of opinion about the area. The pay-off for Europe's positive involvement would be the Mediterranean being encircled by a wondrous array of people living in peace who, together with Europe, could be mutually beneficial.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate, which is extremely important. As all of your Lordships have said, it is extremely difficult to find a real solution. It appears that everyone is concerned with either the people who live in Israel or the lot of the Palestinians, which is terrible. But the truth is that most people are interested in and concerned about both.
	The Question asks: what can the British Government do to try to help the peace process? Without the peace process there will never be a proper solution. The noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, touched on the point that, truthfully, our Government could persuade or use their influence to suggest to the Arab countries that they should recognise Israel's right to exist. If we are to look to a two-state solution, we cannot ask anyone to sit side by side with someone who is determined to get rid of him.
	I say that because if we are to talk about history—although it does not teach us everything, it teaches us a fair bit—in 1948, within 48 hours of the state being declared, six Arab armies attacked that tiny democracy. Israel has had to fight for its very existence and life for years. Today we face the problem of the suicide bombers.
	Many noble Lords talked about what Israel has achieved since 1948, and I do not want to waste time by repeating that. It has a thriving economy; it has universities and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, said, it has hospitals and schools and it looks after its people. Many people do not realise that since the early 1950s, Israel has absorbed between 600,000 and 700,000 Jewish refugees who were either turfed out of Arab countries or left of their own volition. Those refugees have been settled in Israel, have been accepted and have had a good life. In contrast, we see the horror of the Palestinian refugees who live in poverty.
	No Arab country—and many are wealthy—has offered to take them in and house them. It seemed politically easier to leave them as a sore so that everyone could talk about how terrible is the lot of the Palestinian Arabs. It is, but the problem could be dealt with by those Arab countries if they wanted to do so.
	I turn to the second area in which the Government could use their influence. They could suggest that the Arab leaders tell their own people the truth about the situation. After the awful events of 11th September, it is no good to hear that the problem was as a result of Israel. Such language is bad in the long-term interests of peace. Children in Arab schools are taught about the glory of being a suicide bomber and about the terrible things which the Israelis do. They are told that they are rapists, murderers and thieves. I am sure that many noble Lords who, like me, read the report in today's Daily Telegraph were as upset as I was to realise that people can make such remarks.
	I do not want to say any more. I have mentioned two steps that our Government can take. I accept that people who have views different from mine also want peace, as do I. I believe that together we could all try to use our influence and ensure that that happens.

Lord Mitchell: My Lords, I, too, want to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and congratulate him on making his maiden speech. He said many wise words. In particular, he pointed to the many parallels which can be drawn with the situation in Northern Ireland.
	I also want to declare that I have an interest similar to that declared by the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf. My wife is also involved in the New Israel Fund. Many of us from the Jewish community feel passionately not only about Israel but also about what is happening in Palestine. We see the same pictures on our television screens. We see Palestinian children being killed and we hate and loathe it and we want it to stop.
	I want to quote what President Clinton said yesterday in London when he gave the annual Dimbleby lecture. He said:
	"Before I left office I recommended and Israel accepted, but the PLO rejected, the most dramatic peace proposal for a comprehensive fair peace in the Middle East to give the Palestinians a state on the West Bank and Gaza. It would have protected Muslim and Palestinian religious and political equities on the Temple Mount, the Haram al-Sharif".
	As noble Lords will recall, Chairman Arafat walked out of those negotiations. So although I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for introducing the debate, my reluctant conclusion is that so long as Chairman Arafat is around, the peace process will remain a stalemate.
	The question is: why did Arafat spurn a deal that offered him almost everything he had asked for? My opinion is that there really are two Yassir Arafats. The first Arafat speaks in English and addresses the West. He is statesmanlike. He talks of two states, Israel and Palestine, living in harmony side by side. That Arafat receives the Nobel prize for peace and is seen in the company of the great and the good all over the world.
	But there is another Arafat. This one speaks in Arabic and speaks to his Arab constituency both in Palestine and throughout the Middle East. This Arafat is bellicose and talks not in terms of Israel retreating to the 1967 borders but of a Palestinian state between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. This one entertains no state of Israel.
	This Arafat allows his schools and his media to demonise Jews. He closes his eyes to terrorism and until yesterday had done little to rein in the suicide bombers. This Arafat runs his fiefdom like a Mafia boss: corrupt, nepotistic, autocratic and responsible to no one.
	When Barak made his sensational offer this time last year, Arafat found himself on the horns of a dilemma. It was his moment of reckoning—both Arafats would have to mouth the same words. So what did he do? He upped and bolted.
	In our lifetimes we have seen many men who, in their youths, were described as dangerous terrorists, but who, in middle age, matured into statesmen. Yesterday's freedom fighters emerged to become the fathers of their nations. The tragedy in this situation is that, whatever metamorphis effects such a transformation, in Yasser Arafat's case it never happened.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this short debate has made the case for a longer debate in government time in this House on this extremely important problem. Like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I am a glutton for punishment—I have been here for both debates today. In a sense, this is a continuation of the previous debate, in which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said that the Arab/Israel conflict is as important a priority for the United States—and, indeed, for Western Europe—as is a settlement in Afghanistan. That is the degree of importance this crisis has for us. It has implications for the whole of the Middle East, for relations with Iraq and for the West, which depends on oil.
	I agree strongly with those who have said that part of the tragedy of the situation is the declining quality of leadership on both sides. Arafat has clearly been there too long. He appears not to be personally corrupt, but many of his friends are clearly part of a very corrupt system. Sharon is not the best or most constructive Prime Minister that Israel could have, and, sadly, the divisions in Israeli politics and society are themselves an obstacle to peace. We have, therefore, severe problems.
	The Israeli attempt to replace Arafat by force is a further mistake. If we find that Arafat has been replaced by Hamas, we will be in a worse situation than we are now. There has to be a legitimate authority with which the Israelis can deal. I was very distressed when I was talking to various representatives of Israel in the past week in an attempt to get some sense; I cannot find a constructive Israeli strategy at the moment. The only thing we have is retaliation for each act of terrorism or, as the Palestinians would put it, resistance.
	We need to remind the current Israeli Government that European support for Israel was always based on the presupposition that Israel was a more open, liberal society than its Arab opponents, and that its Government would continue to behave in a qualitatively more civilised fashion. That presupposition is now, to some extent, in jeopardy.
	We have to address the question of the settlements. They are illegal; they were placed on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to provoke; and, for the fundamentalists who occupy some of them, they are intended to occupy the land of Eretz Israel and eventually to drive the Palestinians out of the whole of the land of Israel. That is what it looks like to Palestinians. That is a part of what drives the politics of despair which fuel suicide bombers.
	Israel has to tackle its own fundamentalists and its own inability to observe UN resolutions if it is to maintain any kind of policy towards peace. I was sorry to see in the Israeli Embassy briefing a reference to the Palestine Authority's failure to fulfil its commitments and undertakings because Israel, too, has failed to fulfil its commitments and undertakings, and to recognise UN resolutions.
	I wish to make two more points. The United States is also a part of the problem. I was also in the United States two weeks ago, where I was shaken rigid by the number of congressmen who are now saying, "And Iraq comes next", and refusing to recognise that the Iraq and Israeli problems go together. I was even more shaken, as were a number of other European politicians who were there, to hear a Democratic congressman say, "You Europeans ought to learn more about Israel. I have been on a very well balanced tour of Israel and of Palestine, sponsored by AIPAC, which gave me a very thorough impression of what was there". That is part of the problem. The American political elite sees a different set of issues from those we see over here.
	My last point, therefore, is what do Europeans do? What does Britain do as a European state? The answer has to be that we revive more active European involvement in the Israeli-Arab conflict. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Stone of Blackheath, sketched out as a settlement. There was one occasion on which EU member governments, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, when he was the British Foreign Secretary, attempted in the Venice Declaration a European initiative in the Israeli-Arab conflict. The Americans immediately protested and we backtracked.
	A very substantial proportion of EU external assistance goes to the Palestinian Authority and to the others in the region. Part of what is now being bombed and destroyed has been paid for by the Europeans. What we have to see, I suggest, is a much more active European role if we are to avoid the situation deteriorating further.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, we thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for having initiated this debate. It has been most informative, with many diverse contributions.
	This debate is as important in its way as the earlier one on the current situation in Afghanistan. These two geographically different areas are in today's global but shrunken world beset by so many similar problems. My Lords, why? And why are we discussing these two areas? The answer is surely terrorism. The chronic instability in both of these areas undermines vital Western economic interests and threatens world peace and security. The terrorist outrage on 11th September shocked the complacency of the West.
	We on this side have been horrified and outraged by the recent bombings in Israel. Only last week 10 more innocent Israeli citizens were shot dead on a bus at a Jewish settlement. Our thoughts are with the families of those who have lost loved ones and with those people who every day fear for their security. Sadly, this is only the latest terrorist attack in the region.
	In the light of this, it should come as no surprise to us that Israel has broken off all contact with Chairman Arafat. I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, in an admirable maiden speech. We welcome the swift action taken earlier this month by the United States to freeze the assets of three groups linked with funding Hamas. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other groups of their ilk are terrorists. They are not militants. Their only objective is to spread misery and human suffering. As President Bush has said, it is now time for those who want peace to rise up and fight terror. This fight must be conducted wherever incontrovertible evidence of terrorism exists.
	It is difficult to be an optimist about the Middle East peace prospects. Windows of opportunity stay open for only a short time, until we settle down to the usual drift. But this does not absolve us from trying. In dealing with this problem we should take to heart Gramsci's credo, "Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will".
	First, such is the resolve of the world against terrorism at this time that those who commit terrorist attacks only set back their cause. Secondly, there are structures in place through which peace can be achieved in the Middle East. Even though the situation today looks bleak and depressing, the only viable solution for both Israelis and Palestinians is to return to the negotiating table, keeping in mind the outline of the deal brokered at Camp David and Taba, and to implement the Tenant-Mitchell plans. It is from this basis that we must work.
	In his proposals George Mitchell urges Israel and the Palestinians to "reaffirm their commitment to existing agreements"; calls for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire; calls on Palestinians to crack down on terrorism; and calls on Israel to freeze all new construction of settlements.
	In US Envoys Zinni and Burns we have two prominent diplomats to guide this process on the ground. Israel has signed peace treaties with two of its major neighbours—Egypt and Jordan. It has withdrawn its troops from the territories of a third neighbour, Lebanon. Most of the Arab world has expressed a desire to live in peace with Israel if it resolves its dispute with two of its remaining neighbours—Syria and the Palestinians. Such a peace can be achieved only in line with international resolutions adopted by the Security Council.
	The fresh outbreak of violence between Israel and the Palestinians, especially over the past few days, threatens to bring the area back to a dead end. That would be disastrous for Israelis, Arabs and the rest of the world. Yet a few facts remain constant and important for any future road map for peace in the Middle East.
	The Palestinians and the Arab world will never be able to impose a solution on Israel by force. Israel is already a superpower in the region. The world community considers its existence and safety to be of vital concern. There can be no logical or moral ground for continued confrontation with Israel once peace is achieved. Equally, however, Israel, despite its military power, will never be able to resolve its dispute with the Palestinians (and Arabs) by force alone.
	Peace in the Middle East is an important part of the jigsaw in the fight against terrorism. Yasser Arafat should continue to be pressed to act swiftly. All measures must be taken to pursue and apprehend those responsible for terrorism anywhere in the world.
	I was reminded the other day by a colleague that Goethe wrote that God had sent mankind the Devil in order to stir him out of his accustomed sloth. Perhaps we shall look back on bin Laden as the devil from whose evil acts of terrorism good was able to come to the Middle East.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, like other speakers, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for initiating the debate. I was about to say that it is a timely debate, but the sad truth is that almost any debate on any day, in any year, in respect of the Middle East could be described as "timely". It would be wonderful if we could have a debate on the Middle East that did not respond to immediate points of crisis.
	My job is to respond to 15 speeches, to summarise some of the problems of the Middle East and to point the way forward, and in only 12 minutes—which will take a bit of doing. By way of a brief summary to begin with, this has been a moving debate, given the number of different perspectives that speakers have brought to it—nearly all of them in one form or another calling for a return to the negotiating table and passionately wanting peace. As the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said, in many ways this debate is as important as our earlier debate on Afghanistan. It certainly relates to a problem which the international community has found even more intractable and long-standing.
	Perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney. I find it odd to be describing him as making his maiden speech, having heard him, as he has heard me, on numerous occasions in the other place. As ever, he brings knowledge, expertise and fluency to this subject, as he has done to so many others.
	The Government are greatly concerned by the cycle of violence in the region and the tragic deaths on both sides. It is tragic to reflect on the phenomenal optimism which existed at the time of the Oslo accords just eight years ago and the frightening degree to which it seems to have dissipated.
	We condemned the appalling suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Haifa and we shared the outrage felt in Israel at these and other recent atrocities—which were referred to specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs. As my noble friend Lady Symons said when she repeated a Statement in this House on 5th December, such attacks,
	"have put the people of Israel in fear of going about their normal lives".—[Official Report, 5/12/01; col. 889.]
	These attacks must stop. They hinder the recognition of legitimate Palestinian aspirations. They are self-defeating.
	At the same time, Palestinians are suffering fear, injury and death as a result of Israeli actions. We were shocked by the deaths of two young children in an Israeli attempted assassination on 10th December. Too often children and innocent bystanders have been killed and injured in this conflict. My noble friend Lord Mitchell put it eloquently when he said that we hate it; we loathe it; we want it to stop. It is clear that the cycle of violence benefits no one. It is time for action on both sides to end it.
	Both parties have responsibility to break the current impasse, to end the violence and to resume substantive dialogue immediately. We made it clear to President Arafat that he must now deliver on his promises to detain terrorist suspects and to remove the threat that terrorists pose to the stability of the region. It hardly needs emphasising that terrorist violence will not help to secure a viable Palestinian state. Indeed, President Arafat called the Jerusalem and Haifa suicide bombings an attack on the Palestinians. Your Lordships will know that yesterday he called publicly for all terrorist operations to end. We very much welcome and support him in that appeal, which was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Kilclooney and Lord Wright of Richmond.
	President Arafat should also take immediate steps to end the incitement that sours the atmosphere still further. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to President Arafat on 5th December and reinforced the message that he must act quickly and take the first step.
	Of course, the Israelis also have responsibilities. We recognise that they are entitled to ensure their security, but their actions must be restrained and proportionate to the threat. The Israelis must recognise that peace can be secured only by negotiation. The only figure with whom Israel can negotiate peace is President Arafat. He is the elected leader of the Palestinian people and it serves no one's interests to undermine his position. We therefore reject any description of the Palestinian Authority as a terrorist entity. Some of those points were made by the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond.
	There is a recognised route back to the negotiating table, which we and our European Union partners support. Despite the setbacks of recent weeks, it remains the best option. Both parties have accepted the recommendations of the Tenet security plan and the Mitchell committee report. They should be implemented without delay. My noble friend Lord Stone of Blackheath emphasised the importance of a moderate opinion in all these negotiations.
	The Tenet plan outlines a timetable for parallel action by the parties to end the violence, resume security co-operation and implement confidence-building measures. The Mitchell report charts a way out of the violence. It includes the Palestinian Authority making a 100 per cent effort to prevent terrorist operations and discouraging incitement. It also calls on Israel to freeze all settlement activity, lift closures and end the destruction of Palestinian property. Ultimately peace between Israel and the Palestinians will come only through a political process on the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, to implement land for peace, deliver security for Israel within recognised borders—a point emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—bring an end to occupation and allow the emergence of a viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state. That was restated as recently as today in the Statement on the summit by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the other place.
	Resolution of the conflict may seem a long way off. Not surprisingly the mood was sombre in a number of the contributions of noble Lords. I emphasise that the Government are fully engaged with the United States and our European Union partners in diplomatic efforts to move the peace process forward. The general affairs council decided to send EU High Representative Solana to the region on 10th December. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, mentioned the importance of European involvement. Mr Solana reported back to the Laeken European Council on 14th December. The statement from that council is well worth reading. It is a reaffirmation of the package approach, calling on the Palestinians to deliver on their commitments to end violence and to make arrests, and on Israel to cease actions such as the attacks on Palestinian infrastructure that undermine the Palestinian Authority's ability to deliver.
	Our efforts run in parallel with those of the US envoys General Zinni and Assistant Secretary of State Burns to secure a ceasefire. As my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis said, peace is a two-way process.
	A number of speakers, including my noble friend Lord Temple-Morris, have stressed the importance of encouraging the United States to continue its engagement in the region. We welcome the recent comments of President Bush, recognising President Arafat as the elected representative of the Palestinians. The Government will remain in close contact with all the players in the peace process.
	We have also taken our own action against Palestinian terrorism. We took action to freeze the assets of the Holy Land Foundation on 6th December—an organisation suspected of funding Hamas. We will consider any further evidence presented to us by other governments about organisations supporting terrorists and will take action where appropriate.
	We, the US and our EU partners believe that third party monitors could help overcome obstacles to the implementation of the Mitchell committee recommendations. That point was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. For monitors to be successful, both parties would have to agree to their presence.
	We are under no illusion about the enormously difficult issues that need to be resolved in negotiations, but the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton also made important contributions concerning the importance of small steps in the right direction and small confidence-building measures. I re-emphasise that we have repeatedly called for a freeze on Israeli activity in the occupied territories, including natural growth, under the terms of the Mitchell report. The noble Lords, Lord Gilmour, Lord Wright of Richmond and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, all stressed the importance of that. I remind the House of my earlier comment that the Mitchell report has been accepted by both parties. We have said that settlements are illegal under international law and are a real obstacle to peace.
	We also recognise that Israeli closures in the occupied territories cause severe economic hardship and unemployment, which can only fuel hatred and violence and make a comprehensive settlement more difficult to achieve. We have repeatedly raised our concerns to the Israeli Government on political, legal and humanitarian grounds. We did so again with our EU partners at the EU-Israel Association council on 20th November in Brussels. We have also called on Israel to end its policy of incursions and assassinations. Assassinations are illegal under international law and serve to provoke tension on the ground, which, I am sure that we all agree, is not in Israel's long-term interests. Under the terms of the Tenet plan, Israel is required to end proactive security operations in the Palestinian Authority.
	I said earlier that there were a number of issues to be discussed in final status negotiations, leading to a settlement that allows the emergence of a viable Palestinian state and provides security for Israel. Those are obviously the two pillars of any solution. The issues still to be resolved are many, including the status of Jerusalem, the right of return for refugees and the questions of borders and natural resources.
	This has been a sombre and serious debate, as befits the deadly seriousness of the issues that we have been discussing. Whenever I find myself listening to or participating in such debates, I think that in our domestic politics we use words such as "emergency" or "crisis" rather too easily, compared with the difficulties encountered by people trying to solve the problems of violence in the Middle East. The Palestinian and Israeli people have suffered from violence and fear for far too long. Sooner or later they must return to the negotiating table. That is the only means of creating peace in the region and ending the terrible violence that blights lives but guarantees that generation after generation will grow up with a sense and feeling of hatred.
	During Prime Minister's Question Time in another place last week, my right honourable friend said that,
	"the peace process has to be relaunched, based on two points of principle: the first is Israel's existence, secure and confident in its own borders, and accepted by the whole of the Arab world, and the second is the need for a viable Palestinian state".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/2001; col. 831.]
	We can find a way of bringing peace to the region. We will continue to work with the US and our European Union partners to bring the peace that the people of the region so desperately need.

House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past ten o'clock.
	Correction
	Due to a printers' error, the speech of the Lord MacKenzie of Culkein at col. 1509 on 13 December should have continued: "The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, referred to that legislation and its run-up . . ."; instead, the Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts is wrongly shown as making a speech.